Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128601
Message-ID: <4624748F-0C62-4E3C-81D0-5CDC56FEC55F@nicksdot.dev>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_6E81F1AC-AC1E-4E35-B466-443BC64C61D0"
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.700.81\))
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clarify discussion and voting period rules
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 19:46:07 +0700
In-Reply-To: <53cdbf5b-7c6e-4ba1-9987-332634cab527@bastelstu.be>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>,
 php.lists@allenjb.me.uk
To: =?utf-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
References: <53cdbf5b-7c6e-4ba1-9987-332634cab527@bastelstu.be>
From: php@nicksdot.dev (Nick)


--Apple-Mail=_6E81F1AC-AC1E-4E35-B466-443BC64C61D0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On 30. Aug 2025, at 03:21, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> =
wrote:
>=20
> Hi
>=20
> The current policy regarding how RFC are discussed and voted on is =
quite dated and no longer matches the current accepted practices of the =
RFC process.
>=20
> In the past there were several RFCs with a less-than-ideal course of =
discussion. Examples include RFCs being rushed through the process by =
less experienced contributors who are unaware that the two weeks of =
discussion is a *minimum* that can and often should be extended. In the =
weeks leading up to the feature freeze RFCs are rushed even by more =
experienced contributors trying to meet the deadline. This resulted in =
RFCs going to vote in an incomplete state, resulting in them being =
declined, wasting time of everyone involved when a little more =
discussion could've made the RFC succeed.
>=20
> I've thus written up a policy RFC to clarify the current policy =
regarding the RFC process, to use less ambiguous language and to =
formalize some of the current of the currently followed undocumented =
practices. Examples of those would be the heads-up email of an upcoming =
vote and the announcement of any relevant change to the RFC text on the =
list, so that folks become aware of new points to be discussed without =
needing to check the version history all the time.
>=20
> Please find the RFC at: =
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_discussion_and_vote
> And the PR at: https://github.com/php/policies/pull/23
>=20
> As with all policy RFCs, the corresponding PR to the policies =
repository
> will be the authoritative source of the proposal and the RFC (and
> discussion) will only provide extra context. Please do not comment on
> the PR (except for minor typographical or phrasing clarification
> suggestions). For comments regarding the actual "policy" reply to this
> discussion thread for proper visibility instead and I'll make sure to
> incorporate them as appropriate.
>=20
> I intend to dogfood the proposed policy during discussion and voting =
of this RFC. Changes to the PR will be considered changes to the RFC =
text.
>=20
> To spell it out explicitly: This email marks the official start of the =
minimum discussion period of 2 weeks.
>=20
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus

Hey Tim,

As requested in the other thread, I am reposting it here. I=E2=80=99d =
appreciate if you could add it to your RFC!=20
And while I we are on it, I will add another point because your RFC =
touches this anyway.

1) Reference of discussion in RFCs

When I try to look into the discussions of older RFCs to find out why =
they ended up the way they did, it=E2=80=99s not easy. You hardly can =
find them. This is because they are often not referenced in the RFC =
itself.

Going forward, would it make sense to make it mandatory to reference =
'[Discussion]' and '[Vote]' in the RFC text itself?


2) Make revisions public

I don=E2=80=99t quite understand why RFC revisions are not public. I =
believe it would be very helpful to see the diffs of the RFCs. Because =
then everyone can see how and why a RFC evolved. Revisions could be =
listed at the bottom; on click you see the diff. Perhaps it makes sense =
to only apply this change to RFCs that would be proposed after this =
change potentially will be accepted.

=E2=80=94

For completeness, I copied the two answers from the other thread below =
and CC Allen:

> On 1. Sep 2025, at 18:09, AllenJB <php.lists@allenjb.me.uk> wrote:
>=20
> On 01/09/2025 11:28, Nick wrote:
>> Hey there!
>>=20
>> When I try to look into the discussions of older RFCs to find out why =
they ended up the way they did, it=E2=80=99s not easy. You hardly can =
find them. This is because they are often not referenced in the RFC =
itself.
>>=20
>> Going forward, would it make sense to make it mandatory to reference =
'[Discussion]' and '[Vote]' in the RFC text itself?
>>=20
>> Cheers
>> Nick
> FYI I can usually find most RFC discussions by searching on =
https://externals.io <https://externals.io/> for the RFC title
>=20
> To be clear, I would also still encourage RFC authors to add =
discussion and vote thread links to RFCs. I think it helps people who =
are not familiar with the RFC process when RFCs are linked outside of =
the list, such as on Reddit or social media. I'll often add a comment to =
RFC posts on r/php to link the discussion threads so people can follow =
the list discussion.
>=20
> Also, some discussions are harder to find when there's many other list =
discussions that mention the same keywords as the RFC title.
>=20
> Thought: This could potentially be automated with a script that looks =
for list emails with a RFC link in the body. If the email body contains =
a RFC link, the subject contains the RFC title and either [Discussion] =
or [Vote], then add a reference to the linked RFC wiki page.
>=20

Thanks, I knew of externals.=20
It can be helpful sometimes but not always. The search is quite limited, =
as you also noted.
I think we agree that it cannot be wrong to have it in the RFC.=20

> On 1. Sep 2025, at 18:16, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote:
>=20
> Hi
>=20
> Am 2025-09-01 12:28, schrieb Nick:
>> When I try to look into the discussions of older RFCs to find out why =
they ended up the way they did, it=E2=80=99s not easy. You hardly can =
find them. This is because they are often not referenced in the RFC =
itself.
>> Going forward, would it make sense to make it mandatory to reference =
'[Discussion]' and '[Vote]' in the RFC text itself?
>=20
> I was having troubles finding the corresponding discussion thread for =
some RFCs myself before (and regretfully did not always add the links to =
the list archives myself to my own RFCs). I think this makes sense and =
I'm happy to include this requirement as part of my current =E2=80=9CClari=
fy discussion and voting period rules=E2=80=9D RFC. Would you mind =
sending another email to the discussion thread of that one to have it =
all in a single location: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128594?
>=20
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus

Done. :)

=E2=80=94=20

Cheers,
Nick



--Apple-Mail=_6E81F1AC-AC1E-4E35-B466-443BC64C61D0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: =
after-white-space;"><br><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On 30. Aug =
2025, at 03:21, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus &lt;tim@bastelstu.be&gt; =
wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div>Hi<br><br>The current =
policy regarding how RFC are discussed and voted on is quite dated and =
no longer matches the current accepted practices of the RFC =
process.<br><br>In the past there were several RFCs with a =
less-than-ideal course of discussion. Examples include RFCs being rushed =
through the process by less experienced contributors who are unaware =
that the two weeks of discussion is a *minimum* that can and often =
should be extended. In the weeks leading up to the feature freeze RFCs =
are rushed even by more experienced contributors trying to meet the =
deadline. This resulted in RFCs going to vote in an incomplete state, =
resulting in them being declined, wasting time of everyone involved when =
a little more discussion could've made the RFC succeed.<br><br>I've thus =
written up a policy RFC to clarify the current policy regarding the RFC =
process, to use less ambiguous language and to formalize some of the =
current of the currently followed undocumented practices. Examples of =
those would be the heads-up email of an upcoming vote and the =
announcement of any relevant change to the RFC text on the list, so that =
folks become aware of new points to be discussed without needing to =
check the version history all the time.<br><br>Please find the RFC at: =
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_discussion_and_vote<br>And the PR at: =
https://github.com/php/policies/pull/23<br><br>As with all policy RFCs, =
the corresponding PR to the policies repository<br>will be the =
authoritative source of the proposal and the RFC (and<br>discussion) =
will only provide extra context. Please do not comment on<br>the PR =
(except for minor typographical or phrasing =
clarification<br>suggestions). For comments regarding the actual =
"policy" reply to this<br>discussion thread for proper visibility =
instead and I'll make sure to<br>incorporate them as =
appropriate.<br><br>I intend to dogfood the proposed policy during =
discussion and voting of this RFC. Changes to the PR will be considered =
changes to the RFC text.<br><br>To spell it out explicitly: This email =
marks the official start of the minimum discussion period of 2 =
weeks.<br><br>Best regards<br>Tim =
D=C3=BCsterhus<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Hey =
Tim,</div><div><br></div><div>As requested in the other thread, I am =
reposting it here. I=E2=80=99d appreciate if you could add it to your =
RFC!&nbsp;</div><div>And while I we are on it, I will add another point =
because your RFC touches this =
anyway.</div><div><br></div><div><b>1)&nbsp;<span style=3D"color: =
rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.85); font-family: &quot;Helvetica Neue&quot;;">Reference =
of discussion in RFCs</span></b></div><div><div><br></div><div>When I =
try to look into the discussions of older RFCs to find out why they =
ended up the way they did, it=E2=80=99s not easy. You hardly can find =
them. This is because they are often not referenced in the RFC =
itself.</div><div><br></div><div>Going forward, would it make sense to =
make it mandatory to reference '[Discussion]' and '[Vote]' in the RFC =
text itself?</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><b>2) =
Make revisions public</b></div><div><br></div><div>I don=E2=80=99t quite =
understand why RFC revisions are not public. I believe it would be very =
helpful to see the diffs of the RFCs. Because then everyone can see how =
and why a RFC evolved. Revisions could be listed at the bottom; on click =
you see the diff. Perhaps it makes sense to only apply this change to =
RFCs that would be proposed after this change potentially will be =
accepted.</div></div><div><br></div><div>=E2=80=94</div><div><br></div><di=
v>For completeness, I copied the two answers from the other thread below =
and CC Allen:</div><div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><div>On 1. Sep 2025, at 18:09, AllenJB =
&lt;php.lists@allenjb.me.uk&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On=
 01/09/2025 11:28, Nick wrote:<br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
cite=3D"mid:30FD734F-2ED4-4D48-823A-3E4E0F265D38@nicksdot.dev">Hey =
there!<div><br></div><div><div>When I try to look into the discussions =
of older RFCs to find out why they ended up the way they did, it=E2=80=99s=
 not easy. You hardly can find them. This is because they are often not =
referenced in the RFC itself.</div><div><br></div><div>Going forward, =
would it make sense to make it mandatory to reference '[Discussion]' and =
'[Vote]' in the RFC text =
itself?</div></div><div><br></div><div><b>Cheers</b></div><div>Nick</div><=
/blockquote><p>FYI I can usually find most RFC discussions by searching =
on&nbsp;<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" =
href=3D"https://externals.io/">https://externals.io</a>&nbsp;for the RFC =
title</p><p>To be clear, I would also still encourage RFC authors to add =
discussion and vote thread links to RFCs. I think it helps people who =
are not familiar with the RFC process when RFCs are linked outside of =
the list, such as on Reddit or social media. I'll often add a comment to =
RFC posts on r/php to link the discussion threads so people can follow =
the list discussion.</p><p>Also, some discussions are harder to find =
when there's many other list discussions that mention the same keywords =
as the RFC title.</p><p>Thought: This could potentially be automated =
with a script that looks for list emails with a RFC link in the body. If =
the email body contains a RFC link, the subject contains the RFC title =
and either [Discussion] or [Vote], then add a reference to the linked =
RFC wiki page.<span =
id=3D"x-apple-selection:end"></span></p></div></blockquote></div><div><blo=
ckquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, =
0);"><div></div></blockquote>Thanks, I knew of =
externals.&nbsp;</div><div>It can be helpful sometimes but not always. =
The search is quite limited, as you also noted.</div><div>I think we =
agree that it cannot be wrong to have it in the =
RFC.&nbsp;</div><div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"color: =
rgb(0, 0, 0);"><div>On 1. Sep 2025, at 18:16, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus =
&lt;tim@bastelstu.be&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div>Hi<br><br>Am 2025-09-01 12:28, =
schrieb Nick:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite">When I try to look into the =
discussions of older RFCs to find out why they ended up the way they =
did, it=E2=80=99s not easy. You hardly can find them. This is because =
they are often not referenced in the RFC itself.<br>Going forward, would =
it make sense to make it mandatory to reference '[Discussion]' and =
'[Vote]' in the RFC text itself?<br></blockquote><br>I was having =
troubles finding the corresponding discussion thread for some RFCs =
myself before (and regretfully did not always add the links to the list =
archives myself to my own RFCs). I think this makes sense and I'm happy =
to include this requirement as part of my current =E2=80=9CClarify =
discussion and voting period rules=E2=80=9D RFC. Would you mind sending =
another email to the discussion thread of that one to have it all in a =
single location: =
https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128594?<br><br>Best =
regards<br>Tim D=C3=BCsterhus<br></div></blockquote><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"></div><div>Done. =
:)</div></div><div><br></div><div>=E2=80=94&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div=
><div><b>Cheers,</b></div><div>Nick</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></d=
iv></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_6E81F1AC-AC1E-4E35-B466-443BC64C61D0--