Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128775 X-Original-To: internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: internals@lists.php.net Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (php-smtp4.php.net [45.112.84.5]) by lists.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26B0E1A00BC for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2025 01:53:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=php.net; s=mail; t=1759629146; bh=wmkA6nWxjuICVqwy7godHtDuR5bPNbIQpXuyxGuekUk=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=PY3kB7HOd8hNOTLgKLpRN1NgDhAM2sy6FUMHJUBAzCIHgWKjmsm7ZCkWyeBQopVFx a1Qj6yRl3wYSDSw2F7RmEngdt0fVqbuax65dEnaQz2mONQbrZ2xJH4XeQ3LpC3wJgs Gd014BoUHwM1jXxlmDIaxdDmSHIaRmx9BJ8LmmFi5pl9GO5vY/PTBBr3qiBPOlMr/S 3nhzgqohUb+W6r1cMu9LA4RLWJuQJrKE96J4g10RlaR4ZdTqerknHkpFEGYqDzmjPJ tj/NGHbkbRDW/6meHukZ2dYYAjucJPa9Y75fACLgdi27o5MEfkF3R9N8JTDoSy4R3W J/H6XQpjSTWoA== Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F30E180209 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2025 01:52:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,DMARC_PASS,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from www589.your-server.de (www589.your-server.de [162.55.254.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2025 01:52:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nicksdot.dev; s=default2508; h=References:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Message-Id:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=vLHJEx4TMhhSGxt888akVQ3lmB+JUW+bp6F0LZrB8ak=; b=NnFgnutqchvl9eKDwpNXOiYEQl v6lgjyW4XoQz4rTMHyL7a/c3eXos59hpEb/C6MPHngANHw4iQ9gzGGx0O9JTZ7AYpLkjLfP1U1LYx /doJ01NZEbnyQZz7wefr3vD+67G/mJ1or3KXPOIlD4kDJgyUcLscncjdv1mGpgWeO8UkMFGOoN7x6 H6eZPB3pX81dgya5eUzpprDg9WAnHWqSPnPUIMp8r20AF8g9CAmOpn8r1fGae5h11dGUyL145wRy9 LkAU8q4g6562aRAcaceASfzmtTcCSqPOpdeFdAj9bxCzRZ8JF5tgw4ET02LGGmFlO5nmnTZexS6fZ pBYcrnew==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by www589.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96.2) (envelope-from ) id 1v5DwQ-00084E-2P; Sun, 05 Oct 2025 03:53:39 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3A44F2F3-8561-49E4-9238-325F24252B07" Precedence: list list-help: list-post: List-Id: x-ms-reactions: disallow Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.700.81\)) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clarify discussion and voting period rules Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2025 08:53:20 +0700 In-Reply-To: Cc: php internals , tim@bastelstu.be To: youkidearitai 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> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.700.81) X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 1.0.9/27780/Thu Oct 2 04:58:32 2025) From: php@nicksdot.dev (Nick) --Apple-Mail=_3A44F2F3-8561-49E4-9238-325F24252B07 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On 4. Oct 2025, at 16:02, youkidearitai = wrote: >=20 > 2025=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=883=E6=97=A5(=E9=87=91) 23:10 Tim D=C3=BCsterhus = : >>=20 >> Hi >>=20 >> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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) >>>=20 >>> First, we must join to discussion in "Under Discussion" phase. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> Looking at your RFC specifically, you would have needed to do the >> following things differently: >>=20 >> - 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> Best regards >> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Regards > Yuya >=20 > --=20 > --------------------------- > Yuya Hamada (tekimen) > - https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info > - https://github.com/youkidearitai > =E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94= =E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94 Hey Yuya. Follow up on what we communicated off-list. I will hopefully can = summarise what Tim means in plain English. Tim wrote: > 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 = during 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: Tim is not targeting your RFC negatively. Tim is using your RFC to show when canceling a vote can be good. Tim is supporting what you did. Tim is not planning for the future to disallow what you did.=20 Tim is confirming what you did should officially be allowed. Tim wrote: > My policy RFC is explicitly saying that canceling the vote in cases = like this is allowed. Tim again confirms that what you did should be officially allowed. Tim wrote: > Looking at your RFC specifically, you would have needed to do the = following things differently: >=20 > - 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. >=20 > 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. Tim is not saying you did wrong. Tim is showing examples for what will be different in the future (if = this RFC is accepted) Tim is telling you that your RFC handling was good. Tim is showing that your RFC handling would not be much different in the = future (if this RFC is accepted) -- I hope this helps to also solve the misunderstanding on-list. =F0=9F=99=8F= Cheers, Nick= --Apple-Mail=_3A44F2F3-8561-49E4-9238-325F24252B07 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On 4. Oct = 2025, at 16:02, youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com> = wrote:

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

-- =
---------------------------
Yuya Hamada (tekimen)
- = https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info
- = https://github.com/youkidearitai
=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2= =80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80= =94=E2=80=94

Hey = Yuya.

Follow up on what we communicated = off-list. I will hopefully can summarise what Tim means in plain = English.

Tim = wrote:

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 during 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:

Tim is not targeting = your RFC negatively.
Tim is using your RFC to show when = canceling a vote can be good.
Tim is supporting = what you did.
Tim is not planning for the = future to disallow what you did. 
Tim is confirming what = you did should officially be = allowed.

Tim = wrote:

My policy = RFC is explicitly saying that canceling the vote in cases like this is = allowed.

Tim again confirms that = what you did should be = officially allowed.

Tim wrote:

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.

Tim is not saying = you did wrong.
Tim is showing examples for what will be = different in the future (if this RFC is accepted)
Tim = is telling you that your RFC handling was good.
Tim is showing = that your RFC handling would not be much different in = the future (if this RFC is = accepted)

--

I = hope this helps to also solve the misunderstanding on-list. = =F0=9F=99=8F

Cheers,
Nick
= --Apple-Mail=_3A44F2F3-8561-49E4-9238-325F24252B07--