Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123072
Message-ID: <40576d10-749d-4dc8-8cc0-cab49f5279eb@bastelstu.be>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 22:02:22 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RFC Process (was: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote announcement] Property
 hooks)
To: Robert Landers <landers.robert@gmail.com>,
 Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAPyj-LBMQEJ=2BF=xk_on4O2xTU+MM2XRAZ5g=uPwVOf=bh+sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKU0u=amT01bwyFdhhwvDR-X-_L39qFsOo2+4HoVZ4hBoV2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9ff3864e-7fb8-4ad1-bbd7-f8c69567a34d@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAPzBOBPaGtUMJrEv60BpGBnka2KoZh22KhafkrOHP4G=QM6nGg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <CAPzBOBPaGtUMJrEv60BpGBnka2KoZh22KhafkrOHP4G=QM6nGg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

On 4/9/24 21:32, Robert Landers wrote:
>> The Aviz RFC was put to a vote last year but didn't pass.
> 
> It would be really nice if votes weren't just a yes/no vote, but
> yes/needs-more-work/no vote, where needs-more-work and no are
> effectively the same in terms of passing the RFC, but needs-more-work
> just means there is more to do (either addressing ugly syntax or the
> idea is sound, but as it says, it needs more work), and can thus be
> simply revoted on after concerns are addressed -- instead of creating
> a whole new RFC that needs to pass the "not too similar to other RFCs
> rule."

Re-proposing an RFC is allowed after 6 months even without substantial 
changes:

https://github.com/php/policies/blob/main/feature-proposals.rst#resurrecting-rejected-proposals

Though I'd argue that property hooks passing would be a substantial 
change of the broader context.

--------------

Relatedly, I would find an official "Abstain" option useful. Any 
"Abstain" votes would be completely disregarded for the results, but it 
would allow voters to indicate that they've read the RFC, thought about 
it and don't sufficiently care either way to influence the results. As 
an RFC author I think it would be useful information to me: Did some 
folks not vote because they missed the RFC or because they are happy 
with either result?

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus