Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128773
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>
 <CAEPPVa1KhZyY=t6s=CbFjPoNHii9cxsKOe_4bb=WMDToyYghpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEPPVa35aD-Ls12pYr3ey6u2uQ6dN3ZR=vyq243A9nQ_0fVPLA@mail.gmail.com> <c1907275be8af4b0c9285180063c124a@bastelstu.be>
In-Reply-To: <c1907275be8af4b0c9285180063c124a@bastelstu.be>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2025 18:02:31 +0900
Message-ID: <CAEPPVa2K1ZZQFg=gmzHykrGueJzeK10HEne=oAoyLAG432jfsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [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)

2025=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=883=E6=97=A5(=E9=87=91) 23:10 Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim=
@bastelstu.be>:
>
> 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 =E2=80=9Cannouncing changes and waiting a little=E2=80=9D is not =
significantly
> changing or complicating the RFC process.
>
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus


I can't be convinced about this matter.
It was a terrible pressure to be suddenly voting with no one to give
us advice on what we should have an under Discussion discussion.
This only appears to justify the mistakes they have made.

This will put me at a major disadvantage.
I couldn't agree with your reply. I have to say that it's NO after all.

Regards
Yuya

--=20
---------------------------
Yuya Hamada (tekimen)
- https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info
- https://github.com/youkidearitai
-----------------------------