Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128779
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.700.81\))
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clarify discussion and voting period rules
In-Reply-To: <CAEPPVa0=w07AU5Bc5FMaFHHGUx8tVrAMwMr780OJTO_wWoR3jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2025 14:54:19 +0700
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>,
 tim@bastelstu.be
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <120156F0-03A7-4B5F-9EA3-25F189DD41DB@nicksdot.dev>
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>
 <CAEPPVa0=w07AU5Bc5FMaFHHGUx8tVrAMwMr780OJTO_wWoR3jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com>
From: php@nicksdot.dev (Nick)


> On 5. Oct 2025, at 09:21, youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> 2025=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=885=E6=97=A5(=E6=97=A5) 10:53 Nick =
<php@nicksdot.dev>:
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 4. Oct 2025, at 16:02, youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> 2025=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=883=E6=97=A5(=E9=87=91) 23:10 Tim D=C3=BCsterhus =
<tim@bastelstu.be>:
>>=20
>>=20
>> Hi
>>=20
>> Am 2025-09-29 14:13, schrieb youkidearitai:
>>=20
>> 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
>>=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
>>=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
>> --
>> ---------------------------
>> 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
>>=20
>>=20
>> Hey Yuya.
>>=20
>> Follow up on what we communicated off-list. I will hopefully can =
summarise what Tim means in plain English.
>>=20
>> Tim wrote:
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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:
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Tim wrote:
>>=20
>> My policy RFC is explicitly saying that canceling the vote in cases =
like this is allowed.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Tim again confirms that what you did should be officially allowed.
>>=20
>> Tim wrote:
>>=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
>>=20
>> 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)
>>=20
>> --
>>=20
>> I hope this helps to also solve the misunderstanding on-list. =F0=9F=99=
=8F
>>=20
>> Cheers,
>> Nick
>=20
> Hi, Tim, Nick
>=20
> I sincerely apologize.
> I am misunderstanding Tim's RFC.
>=20
> I realized this would not interfere with anyone.
> Sorry for the misunderstanding. I take that back what I said "NO".
> It's called "YES".
>=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
Lovely. Keep up the good work. =F0=9F=A4=9D