Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129227
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a273ffad38634db9606d3c529ad9e544@bastelstu.be>
In-Reply-To: <a273ffad38634db9606d3c529ad9e544@bastelstu.be>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2025 10:19:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOWwgp=dP9zu5t4uh9jCWU-dE3KY+0WaqVLErUwQm+pYQe9zkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Clarify discussion and voting period rules
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000c1db306439e9d43"
From: nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com (Nicolas Grekas)

--0000000000000c1db306439e9d43
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Tim, everyone,


> Hi
>
> I just opened voting on the "Clarify discussion and voting period rules"
> RFC. Please find the following resources:
>
> - RFC Text: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_discussion_and_vote
> - Implementation PR: https://github.com/php/policies/pull/23
> - Discussion Thread: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128594
>
> The RFC contains a single primary vote requiring a 2/3 majority. Voting
> will close 2025-11-20 09:30:00 UTC.
>
> ----------------
>
> As during the discussion, I'd like to explicitly spell out some of the
> things that I took into account.
>
> It is now 2025-11-06 08:54 UTC (and will be a little later when I
> actually hit send).
>
> - The last change to the RFC was a Major Change on 2025-10-23 07:37:43
> UTC: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128921
> - The Intent to Vote announcement was sent on 2025-11-04 08:45:24 UTC:
> https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/129063
> - There was no further feedback to take into account after the last
> Major Change (and thus neither after the Intent to Vote).
>
> A little more than 14 days have passed since the last major change. A
> little more than 2 days have passed since the Intent to Vote
> announcement. Both is strictly within the proposed rules. The RFC was
> not inactive, since the last email was my Major Change announcement,
> which happened less than 42 days ago.
>
> This email contains all the necessary information, namely the link to
> the RFC text, Discussion Thread, a list of the number of votes to cast
> and the end date. I also included a link to the implementation, since
> this is the main relevant thing for a policy RFC. Voting will close a
> little over 14 days from now. I have specified some buffer room to
> account for =E2=80=9Cmail delivery delay=E2=80=9D.
>
> I will make sure to add a link to the archives of the voting thread as
> soon as I see it appear in the archives.
>


After chatting with a few, I decided to vote against the RFC.
I do appreciate the effort to formalize our unwritten rules.
Yet I'd summarize my vote as: too many MUSTs, not enough SHOULDs in the
proposed policy.
I do think it's important to clarify the rules for occasional contributors,
and MUSTs make things more annoying to me, not smoother.
Also, despite the intro of the RFC, it goes past just clarifying current
rules: it adds MUSTs on things we are fine agreeing to case by case at the
moment.
I wish common sense still remains our main approach, and the RFC as
proposed makes me feel we go into more bureaucracy.
And to me, bureaucratie makes things smoother only for the experts of its
own rules.
Thus my vote.

Cheers,
Nicolas

--0000000000000c1db306439e9d43
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Tim, everyone,</div><br><div class=3D"=
gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex"><br>Hi<br>
<br>
I just opened voting on the &quot;Clarify discussion and voting period rule=
s&quot; <br>
RFC. Please find the following resources:<br>
<br>
- RFC Text: <a href=3D"https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_discussion_and_vote" re=
l=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_discussion_=
and_vote</a><br>
- Implementation PR: <a href=3D"https://github.com/php/policies/pull/23" re=
l=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/php/policies/pull/23<=
/a><br>
- Discussion Thread: <a href=3D"https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/1285=
94" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://news-web.php.net/php.inter=
nals/128594</a><br>
<br>
The RFC contains a single primary vote requiring a 2/3 majority. Voting <br=
>
will close 2025-11-20 09:30:00 UTC.<br>
<br>
----------------<br>
<br>
As during the discussion, I&#39;d like to explicitly spell out some of the =
<br>
things that I took into account.<br>
<br>
It is now 2025-11-06 08:54 UTC (and will be a little later when I <br>
actually hit send).<br>
<br>
- The last change to the RFC was a Major Change on 2025-10-23 07:37:43 <br>
UTC: <a href=3D"https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128921" rel=3D"noref=
errer" target=3D"_blank">https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128921</a><=
br>
- The Intent to Vote announcement was sent on 2025-11-04 08:45:24 UTC: <br>
<a href=3D"https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/129063" rel=3D"noreferrer=
" target=3D"_blank">https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/129063</a><br>
- There was no further feedback to take into account after the last <br>
Major Change (and thus neither after the Intent to Vote).<br>
<br>
A little more than 14 days have passed since the last major change. A <br>
little more than 2 days have passed since the Intent to Vote <br>
announcement. Both is strictly within the proposed rules. The RFC was <br>
not inactive, since the last email was my Major Change announcement, <br>
which happened less than 42 days ago.<br>
<br>
This email contains all the necessary information, namely the link to <br>
the RFC text, Discussion Thread, a list of the number of votes to cast <br>
and the end date. I also included a link to the implementation, since <br>
this is the main relevant thing for a policy RFC. Voting will close a <br>
little over 14 days from now. I have specified some buffer room to <br>
account for =E2=80=9Cmail delivery delay=E2=80=9D.<br>
<br>
I will make sure to add a link to the archives of the voting thread as <br>
soon as I see it appear in the archives.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><di=
v><br></div><div>After chatting with a few, I decided to vote against the R=
FC.</div><div><div>I do appreciate the effort to formalize our unwritten ru=
les.</div><div>Yet I&#39;d summarize my vote as: too many MUSTs, not enough=
 SHOULDs in the proposed policy.</div><div>I do think it&#39;s important to=
 clarify the rules for occasional contributors, and MUSTs make things more =
annoying to me, not smoother.</div><div>Also, despite the intro of the RFC,=
 it goes past just clarifying current rules: it=C2=A0adds MUSTs on things w=
e are fine agreeing to case by case at the moment.</div><div>I wish common =
sense still remains our main approach, and the RFC as proposed makes me fee=
l we go into more bureaucracy.</div><div>And to me, bureaucratie makes thin=
gs smoother=C2=A0only for the experts of its own rules.</div><div>Thus my v=
ote.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Nicolas</div><div></div></d=
iv></div></div>

--0000000000000c1db306439e9d43--