Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128137
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <76059dd0-d27a-4207-9460-658175f54a99@app.fastmail.com>
References: <1e8634d7-ac1a-4025-b4e2-1948aabf5251@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAMzRQTdDNsF_LPpNKUbVROTWjDbN2uDw-j2PrL3xp7qASA62GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <be533915-2b0d-460d-a5ea-76fe98fc4080@app.fastmail.com> <f4e4057b19a5ed9de7ad92215e78d58c@bastelstu.be>
 <cedce076-82de-4391-8a03-409690added9@app.fastmail.com> <bf4cc2d56f491606d3a3037af1243699@bastelstu.be>
 <13B58381-AA61-4D38-A688-DD9E367ADE6F@nicksdot.dev> <96e0ea70-291e-4f0a-b449-acbaef16c099@bastelstu.be>
 <76059dd0-d27a-4207-9460-658175f54a99@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 17:46:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKz+gELLgydTOh_fA97Z0-XJ1FcseJHq3TTSACp9YTO43+TXpg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly property hooks
To: Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>, 
	php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008eb8db063a4a25e6"
From: dossche.niels@gmail.com (Niels Dossche)

--0000000000008eb8db063a4a25e6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Op zaterdag 19 juli 2025 schreef Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025, at 14:10, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
>
> Hi
> Apologies for the belated reply. I was busy with getting my own
> implementation wrapped up and the thread was so active that I had
> troubles keeping up.
>
> Hi Tim,
> Thanks for taking the time to reply. That said, I would like to address a
concern, not about the content of your message, but the timing.
> On multiple RFCs, you've joined in once the discussions has wound down
and a vote is immeninent. At this point, many participants have assumed the
key issues are raised and addressed; or at least, reached the point of
constructive impasse.

Hey

To be honest, I find your email a bit strange, perhaps even misdirected. As
someone who followed this discussion more quietly, it is absolutely not my
impression that the discussion wounded down already.

> Reopening settled threads so close to vote tends to disrupt the process.
It forces others to revisit old arguments under time pressure, giving the
late comments disproportionate visibility, and risks stalling momentum.

It wasn't closed, so there isn't anything to reopen. Also may I remind you
that the call for an impeding vote is the thing that triggers time
pressure, not Tim's reply.
The goal of having an RFC discussion should be to get consensus during the
discussion phase.

> I understand that threads move quickly and schedules vary, but if a
concern is important enough to raise, it really helps to do so while the
discussions are actively evolving. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to
engage meaningfully.

He did raise it.

Keeping track of the entire ML discussions is hard, and also difficult
time-wise. Tim is one of the people who tries to participate to basically
every RFC, doing his part in making sure we end up with the best possible
outcome for a feature. I'd call that meaningful. I'd also rather delay a
feature than having something sooner that we didn't stand behind completely=
.

> At a certain point, late feedback stops being helpful and starts to erode
the trust and rhythm of the process.

I wouldn't call it late.
Rushing this RFC to vote to get it into 8.5, despite there being no clear
consensus, is the thing that erodes trust and breaks the rythm of the
process.

> =E2=80=94 Rob

Kind regards
Niels

--0000000000008eb8db063a4a25e6
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Op zaterdag 19 juli 2025 schreef Rob Landers &lt;rob@bottled.codes&gt;:<br>=
&gt; On Fri, Jul 18, 2025, at 14:10, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:<br>&gt;<br>&=
gt; Hi<br>&gt; Apologies for the belated reply. I was busy with getting my =
own=C2=A0<br>&gt; implementation wrapped up and the thread was so active th=
at I had=C2=A0<br>&gt; troubles keeping up.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Hi Tim,<br>&gt;=
 Thanks for taking the time to reply. That said, I would like to address a =
concern, not about the content of your message, but the timing.<br>&gt; On =
multiple RFCs, you&#39;ve joined in once the discussions has wound down and=
 a vote is immeninent. At this point, many participants have assumed the ke=
y issues are raised and addressed; or at least, reached the point of constr=
uctive impasse.<br><br>Hey<br><br>To be honest, I find your email a bit str=
ange, perhaps even misdirected. As someone who followed this discussion mor=
e quietly, it is absolutely not my impression that the discussion wounded d=
own already.<br><br>&gt; Reopening settled threads so close to vote tends t=
o disrupt the process. It forces others to revisit old arguments under time=
 pressure, giving the late comments disproportionate visibility, and risks =
stalling momentum.<br><br>It wasn&#39;t closed, so there isn&#39;t anything=
 to reopen. Also may I remind you that the call for an impeding vote is the=
 thing that triggers time pressure, not Tim&#39;s reply.<br>The goal of hav=
ing an RFC discussion should be to get consensus during the discussion phas=
e.<br><br>&gt; I understand that threads move quickly and schedules vary, b=
ut if a concern is important enough to raise, it really helps to do so whil=
e the discussions are actively evolving. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to=
 engage meaningfully.<br><br>He did raise it.<br><br>Keeping track of the e=
ntire ML discussions is hard, and also difficult time-wise. Tim is one of t=
he people who tries to participate to basically every RFC, doing his part i=
n making sure we end up with the best possible outcome for a feature. I&#39=
;d call that meaningful. I&#39;d also rather delay a feature than having so=
mething sooner that we didn&#39;t stand behind completely.<br><br>&gt; At a=
 certain point, late feedback stops being helpful and starts to erode the t=
rust and rhythm of the process.<br><br>I wouldn&#39;t call it late.<br>Rush=
ing this RFC to vote to get it into 8.5, despite there being no clear conse=
nsus, is the thing that erodes trust and breaks the rythm of the process.<b=
r><br>&gt; =E2=80=94 Rob<br><br>Kind regards<br>Niels<br>

--0000000000008eb8db063a4a25e6--