Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128776
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> <CAEPPVa2K1ZZQFg=gmzHykrGueJzeK10HEne=oAoyLAG432jfsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <B068C7C4-D9A8-43C3-B7B3-223FF78CD191@nicksdot.dev>
In-Reply-To: <B068C7C4-D9A8-43C3-B7B3-223FF78CD191@nicksdot.dev>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2025 11:21:39 +0900
Message-ID: <CAEPPVa0=w07AU5Bc5FMaFHHGUx8tVrAMwMr780OJTO_wWoR3jw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clarify discussion and voting period rules
To: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Nick <php@nicksdot.dev>, tim@bastelstu.be
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: youkidearitai@gmail.com (youkidearitai)

2025=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=885=E6=97=A5(=E6=97=A5) 10:53 Nick <php@nicksdot.dev>=
:
>
>
> 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 <t=
im@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 summaris=
e what Tim means in plain English.
>
> Tim wrote:
>
> If you realized less than 2 days into the vote that you didn't properly t=
ake 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 in=
sensitive 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 followi=
ng things differently:
>
> - You made minor clarification changes on 2025-06-27. You would have need=
ed to mention them on the list and wait for 7 days before starting the init=
ial vote.
> - Similarly for the revision, you removed the `$strength` parameter on 20=
25-07-15. 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 t=
he RFC itself.
>
> Everything else was already compliant from what I see. I think you can se=
e how =E2=80=9Cannouncing changes and waiting a little=E2=80=9D is not sign=
ificantly 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

Hi, Tim, Nick

I sincerely apologize.
I am misunderstanding Tim's RFC.

I realized this would not interfere with anyone.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I take that back what I said "NO".
It's called "YES".

Regards
Yuya

--=20
---------------------------
Yuya Hamada (tekimen)
- https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info
- https://github.com/youkidearitai
-----------------------------