Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128770
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 16:10:49 +0200
To: youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clarify discussion and voting period rules
In-Reply-To: <CAEPPVa35aD-Ls12pYr3ey6u2uQ6dN3ZR=vyq243A9nQ_0fVPLA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
 <CAEPPVa1KhZyY=t6s=CbFjPoNHii9cxsKOe_4bb=WMDToyYghpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEPPVa35aD-Ls12pYr3ey6u2uQ6dN3ZR=vyq243A9nQ_0fVPLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c1907275be8af4b0c9285180063c124a@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 2025-09-29 14:13, schrieb youkidearitai:
> Anyway, I thought about this topic few days.
> As long as there are people who don't take part in the discussion in
> "Under Discussion" phase, I'll say no to this topic.
> 
> I was concerned that "Clarify " would put people who are not native
> English at a disadvantage (I'm writing use Google translate too).
> This will not clear the concerns.
> (However, I don't have grant for vote an RFC)
> 
> First, we must join to discussion in "Under Discussion" phase.

As mentioned in my previous email, I believe there is a 
misunderstanding. My RFC is not intended to make it harder to make RFCs 
or to put folks who are not native speakers of English at a disadvantage 
(I am not a native speaker myself). It is formalizing some rules around 
the length of the discussion period to ensure there is sufficient time 
for folks to provide feedback after every change made.

Looking at your RFC specifically, you would have needed to do the 
following things differently:

- You made minor clarification changes on 2025-06-27. You would have 
needed to mention them on the list and wait for 7 days before starting 
the initial vote.
- Similarly for the revision, you removed the `$strength` parameter on 
2025-07-15. This was a major change which you announced on the list, but 
you would have needed to wait 14 days before starting the vote, you only 
waited 10 days.
- And on 2025-07-22 there was some clarification, which was not 
announced on the list.
- You would have needed to add a link to the mailing list discussion to 
the RFC itself.

Everything else was already compliant from what I see. I think you can 
see how “announcing changes and waiting a little” is not significantly 
changing or complicating the RFC process.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus