Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123105
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>
 <DS0PR12MB646473B802D4077EA8E48D62DB062@DS0PR12MB6464.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <CA+pig-Jq_iF-AhxCC1yhTZhvNQUNzZmDW9u=CrFRzAyOhJq9pw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+pig-Jq_iF-AhxCC1yhTZhvNQUNzZmDW9u=CrFRzAyOhJq9pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:23:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPzBOBN-o2HQB5-Vqcp1URa0kRS0AdTMAhmSwfyAqFJBJ9H_Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: External Message: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote announcement] Property hooks
To: Mark Trapp <mark@itafroma.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Dafoe <JDafoe@fsx.com>, Erick de Azevedo Lima <ericklima.comp@gmail.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>, "autaut03@gmail.com" <autaut03@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: landers.robert@gmail.com (Robert Landers)

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:41=E2=80=AFPM Mark Trapp <mark@itafroma.com> wro=
te:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:59=E2=80=AFAM Jeffrey Dafoe <JDafoe@fsx.com> wr=
ote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 4:01=E2=80=AFPM Erick de Azevedo Lima <mailto=
:ericklima.comp@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Maybe if such a feedback was given before and it was decided to go fo=
r a trimmed version of the feature, maybe Ilija/Larry could have had less w=
ork to implement and test all the variantes they've done. I think if a pers=
on has such numerous concerns, it should be exposed ASAP even if your thoug=
hts are not
> > > totally clear. If you had a chat directly with Ilija/Larry, they woul=
d be aware of such concerns and would expend efforts to address these conce=
rns.
> >
> > > To an outsider, it looks wild when feedback starts coming in right be=
fore the vote starts. What's even more startling is that there are people w=
ith voting rights who have never participated in the discussion at all, yet=
 have a right to wordlessly affect the vote's outcome. I sincerely hope Ili=
ja and Larry's work don't
> > > go to waste here.
> >
> > I hope that the property hooks feature goes through. I've used it in C#=
 and it reads nice and saves time.
> >
> > Waiting until the last minute to express a significant design disagreem=
ent is disrespectful of the time the RFC authors have spent working on this=
 proposal. It's also counterproductive to the PHP project overall.
> >
> > -Jeff
>
> Just a friendly reminder that feedback on why people vote against RFCs
> has been desperately sought after and requested each time a seemingly
> popular RFC is rejected, and the feedback provided by others for this
> RFC was done so in good faith, before voting started, allowing the RFC
> authors to address said feedback should they choose to acknowledge it.
>
> And in general, the wider PHP community does not pay attention to RFCs
> until/unless they come up for a vote.
>
> Admonishing people for providing unexpected or negative feedback will
> have a chilling effect for future RFC attempts, as it's much easier to
> just silently vote no than to be attacked simply for providing a
> dissenting opinion at an inconvenient time.
>
> - Mark

Hey Mark,

I think that is fair, but I'd also point out that RFCs have been
rejected in the past simply because voters felt it was "too last
minute" before a release. I don't think it's fair to decline RFCs for
being too last minute, but when the inverse happens to an RFC: a huge
dissenting opinion at the last second, call foul.

Largely, I agree with you but it's worth pointing out the incongruity here.

Robert Landers
Software Engineer
Utrecht NL