Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128720
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 09:09:00 +0200
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clarify discussion and voting period rules
In-Reply-To: <29c9d6cfcc2928d3805596416edbff6e@bastelstu.be>
References: <53cdbf5b-7c6e-4ba1-9987-332634cab527@bastelstu.be>
 <29c9d6cfcc2928d3805596416edbff6e@bastelstu.be>
Message-ID: <92a59844e30a9ca0550456886913fdb1@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

Am 2025-09-19 10:55, schrieb Tim Düsterhus:
>> 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
> 
> If you followed along the discussion, you might've seen that Larry 
> offered to improve the phrasing of the policy for clarity. This has 
> happened now and I think Larry did a great job at improving the 
> structure of the policy text, while still using precise language and 
> preserving the intended semantics. He made some changes to the policy 
> as part of the rephrasing and I agree with them all. Specifically:

I just realized that the RFC text was not strictly following the latest 
policy in the PR, the explanation of the voting widget was missing (“All 
voting widgets on the RFC MUST include all relevant details for that 
vote, as described in the "Required Majority" section below”). I have 
just added that (“Primary Vote requiring a 2/3 majority to accept the 
RFC:”) and will also make sure to include that in the RFC template, 
should this RFC be accepted.

I'm treating this change to the RFC text as a “Minor change”, since it's 
basically just clarification. It's implied by the existing policy that 
the single voting widget is a primary vote and that it requires a 2/3 
majority.

All that said, I'm happy to hear some feedback on whether or not the 
updated phrasing is looking good to you? :-)

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus