Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123099
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPyj-LBMQEJ=2BF=xk_on4O2xTU+MM2XRAZ5g=uPwVOf=bh+sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <66154AA0.1040905@adviesenzo.nl> <66160A1D.4060409@adviesenzo.nl>
 <cd0da1e3-1906-462f-9677-7df19987b6ec@beccati.com> <CAGS0MVB0KQLgs7hD4=9ks7txF2vW_jb=pY1whKKHMs+pWdOyZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABigaAWwftpRBYZtkcWbqZJYBZA-f58niwmdco0KYtrKx+eHug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sKTK0_3G6CoLPvAfDL+HyM54VJrXV9gWC5MKrhKQ2AJKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGS0MVAqvp01QZLXP8Pq75XGfhwxjWKsb2E-vNQw4aCMHBmruw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGS0MVAqvp01QZLXP8Pq75XGfhwxjWKsb2E-vNQw4aCMHBmruw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:58:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CADyq6s+=2uftCZ0PvM+w2EfRdZFQLAJjwnZ1nkCf3T5R8bs9Og@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote announcement] Property hooks
To: Erick de Azevedo Lima <ericklima.comp@gmail.com>
Cc: autaut03@gmail.com, Robert Landers <landers.robert@gmail.com>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006e2eb80615c0f294"
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--0000000000006e2eb80615c0f294
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 at 18:52, Erick de Azevedo Lima <
ericklima.comp@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Reminder to not run into a sunk cost fallacy.
>
> My main point was not the cost/work itself, but the fact that big concerns
> should be raised ASAP, and not on the 11th hour, as Robert said.
> Whether we like it or not, the voting right beholders' concerns should be
> taken into account with "special attention", because, well...
> They are the ones that, in the end, decide if your RFC will make it to the
> language or not.
> So having no negative feedback or having it only at the last minute before
> voting is not good at all.
> I think doing this and voting for a "no" for a feature that was so well
> received and discussed extensively by the internalians discourages
> OSS developers from contributing to the language we care so much about.
>

Agreed, but to give you some more context:

 * I know JRF has been holding off feedback about it for a long time,
waiting for the RFC to be more "stable" (i.e. not being a moving flubber)
before posting thoughts
 * I personally usually only get into RFCs very early on (when I have a
clear idea/opinion formed on a topic upfront) or at the end, when the RFC
has gone through the ironing out a lot: the in-between is a brawl for which
24h/day aren't sufficient.

The nature of email threads in a mailing list makes RFCs extremely hard to
approach anything that is "in-flight".

Marco Pivetta

https://mastodon.social/@ocramius

https://ocramius.github.io/

--0000000000006e2eb80615c0f294
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail=
_attr">On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 at 18:52, Erick de Azevedo Lima &lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:ericklima.comp@gmail.com">ericklima.comp@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>=
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;b=
order-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">&g=
t; Reminder to not run into a sunk cost fallacy.<br><br><div>My main point =
was not the cost/work itself, but the fact that big concerns should be rais=
ed ASAP, and not on the 11th hour, as Robert said.</div><div>Whether we lik=
e it or not, the voting right beholders&#39; concerns should be taken into =
account with &quot;special attention&quot;, because, well...</div><div>They=
 are the ones that, in the end, decide if your RFC will make it to the lang=
uage or not.</div><div>So having no negative feedback or having it only at =
the last minute before voting is not good at all.</div><div>I think doing t=
his and voting for a &quot;no&quot; for a feature that was so well received=
 and discussed extensively by the internalians discourages</div><div>OSS de=
velopers from contributing to the language we care so much about.</div></di=
v></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed, but to give you some more contex=
t:</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0* I know JRF has been holding off feedbac=
k about it for a long time, waiting for the RFC to be more &quot;stable&quo=
t; (i.e. not being a moving flubber) before posting thoughts<br></div><div>=
=C2=A0* I personally usually only get into RFCs very early on (when I have =
a clear idea/opinion formed on a topic upfront) or at the end, when the RFC=
 has gone through the ironing out a lot: the in-between is a brawl for whic=
h 24h/day aren&#39;t sufficient.</div><div><br></div><div>The nature of ema=
il threads in a mailing list makes RFCs extremely hard to approach anything=
 that is &quot;in-flight&quot;.<br></div><div><br clear=3D"all"><div><div d=
ir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">Marco Pivetta <br><br=
><a href=3D"https://mastodon.social/@ocramius" target=3D"_blank">https://ma=
stodon.social/@ocramius</a><br><br><a href=3D"https://ocramius.github.io/" =
target=3D"_blank">https://ocramius.github.io/</a><br></div></div></div>=C2=
=A0</div></div></div>

--0000000000006e2eb80615c0f294--