Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128736
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <53cdbf5b-7c6e-4ba1-9987-332634cab527@bastelstu.be>
 <29c9d6cfcc2928d3805596416edbff6e@bastelstu.be> <92a59844e30a9ca0550456886913fdb1@bastelstu.be>
 <1a9046bf-2dcc-4049-b1e7-e82d4230b0f6@app.fastmail.com> <7f1bce1f-f80b-48e7-962a-539172a85a6d@bastelstu.be>
 <CAEPPVa0jdg7=jJ7fe889rCMQhyko7yBfPor7fO67pXQfg9zcpA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEPPVa0jdg7=jJ7fe889rCMQhyko7yBfPor7fO67pXQfg9zcpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2025 22:58:22 +0900
Message-ID: <CAEPPVa1KhZyY=t6s=CbFjPoNHii9cxsKOe_4bb=WMDToyYghpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clarify discussion and voting period rules
To: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: youkidearitai@gmail.com (youkidearitai)

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com>
Date: 2025=E5=B9=B49=E6=9C=8827=E6=97=A5(=E5=9C=9F) 11:42
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clarify discussion and voting period rules
To: Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be>


2025=E5=B9=B49=E6=9C=8827=E6=97=A5(=E5=9C=9F) 0:22 Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@=
bastelstu.be>:
>
> Hi
>
> On 9/25/25 00:02, Rob Landers wrote:
> > This goes back to what I was saying: pretty much any change can be just=
ified as =E2=80=9Ca clarification=E2=80=9D by an author. We can choose to a=
ccept the implication of a 2/3 majority, or challenge it.
>
> Absolutely, there is always some uncertainty when not treating something
> as a major change. I explicitly spelled out my reasoning when making the
> change, so that we as a community can discuss how we feel about this
> type of change and to get some discussion precedent if a similar
> situation arrives in the future.
>
> If it would've been a secondary vote, I would've treated it as a major
> change, since in that case I would've considered that =E2=80=9CChanging a=
 voting
> widget=E2=80=9D.
>
> > I also noted you changed the text to mention that a vote can basically =
be restarted for any reason. This would allow an unscrupulous person to bas=
ically restart a vote if it isn=E2=80=99t going in the direction they want,=
 without any reason other than an =E2=80=9Cissue=E2=80=9D with the RFC. Thi=
s means they can rely upon attrition to eventually pass an RFC that would o=
therwise not pass, bypassing the current =E2=80=9Cone year or with major ch=
anges=E2=80=9D rule.
>
> Small correction: It's just half a year before an RFC may be reproposed.
>
> I don't think this is a significant risk: Casting a =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D =
is simple and I
> expect the regular folks to notice if an RFC is repeatedly restarted for
> no good reason. If it becomes clearly abusive, I would expect this to be
> treated similarly to any other case of someone being abusive on the list.
>
> > For example, the nested classes RFC was clearly not going to pass. Had =
this policy existed, taking what feedback I had already gotten, I could hav=
e simply declared =E2=80=9Can issue=E2=80=9D and updated it with their feed=
back; restarting the vote. I personally wouldn=E2=80=99t do that, but this =
would explicitly allow that behavior.
>
> I agree with both Nick and Larry that I would be okay with that: If you
> realized less than 2 days into the vote that you didn't properly take
> the feedback into account and then *do* take the feedback into account,
> I'd consider this a success story rather than a failure.
>
> In fact we had just that for PHP 8.5. The =E2=80=9CAdd locale for case
> insensitive grapheme functions=E2=80=9D RFC had gotten little feedback du=
ring
> the discussion and during the vote, Derick mentioned that the proposal
> was insufficient to make an educated decision. The vote was then
> canceled and later (successfully) restarted:
> https://externals.io/message/127791#127803
>
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus

Hi, Tim

> In fact we had just that for PHP 8.5. The =E2=80=9CAdd locale for case
> insensitive grapheme functions=E2=80=9D RFC had gotten little feedback du=
ring
> the discussion and during the vote, Derick mentioned that the proposal
> was insufficient to make an educated decision. The vote was then
> canceled and later (successfully) restarted:
> https://externals.io/message/127791#127803

I set up an Under discussion for two weeks and sent a reminder email,
so why did it say "Derick stopped it"?
I went to vote after going through the official procedure, but for
some reason I was suddenly told NO.
My understanding is that he didn't take part in the discussion on
"Under Discussion" and didn't even vote.

Why is there such a difference in perception?

Regards
Yuya

--
---------------------------
Yuya Hamada (tekimen)
- https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info
- https://github.com/youkidearitai
-----------------------------


Oh, No. I'm sorry, I send only to Tim.
Resend to Internals.

Regards
Yuya

--=20
---------------------------
Yuya Hamada (tekimen)
- https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info
- https://github.com/youkidearitai
-----------------------------