Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128692
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Message-ID: <1757713250324.277939124.3012483307@yahoo.de>
To: tim@bastelstu.be
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clarify discussion and voting period rules
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 21:43:40 +0000
In-Reply-To: <53cdbf5b-7c6e-4ba1-9987-332634cab527@bastelstu.be>
References: <53cdbf5b-7c6e-4ba1-9987-332634cab527@bastelstu.be>
User-Agent: Vivaldi Mail/7.5.3735.66
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: hanskrentel@yahoo.de (Hans Krentel)




On Friday 29 August 2025 22:21:41 (+02:00), Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:

> 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
>=20


If there is a likely (favourable) misunderstatement of the two weeks, my =
first suggestion would be to double it to four weeks. This also has the =
benefit that it's close to a month so the rest of the days can be used to =
off/on-RFC maintenance. This should better reflect the monthly rhythm of =
the current practice release cadence (and some day to allow -- given better=
 planning -- half the stable release cycle to six (instead of twelve) =
months).

Just my two cents

-- hakre