Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129773
Message-ID: <70c4f0a2-613a-4d6e-9b6b-9dae0f73d49c@bastelstu.be>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 12:08:10 +0100
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Add BackedEnum::values()
To: Mikhail Savin <mikhail.d.savin@gmail.com>,
 php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAJYrtd9FVdJ95Rnk5YqMQWMrDiLHWn=USgWjLSM93fe+4GzugQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <CAJYrtd9FVdJ95Rnk5YqMQWMrDiLHWn=USgWjLSM93fe+4GzugQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi Mikhail,

On 1/18/26 08:31, Mikhail Savin wrote:
> This starts the voting phase for the RFC “Add BackedEnum::values()”.

The start of the vote is very surprising to me. I did not feel that a 12 
email-discussion was sufficient to properly evaluate a long-term plan 
that stretches until PHP 9.0.

It is also in violation of the policy, which requires the discussion to 
be recent (the last email in the discussion thread is from 53 days ago, 
which requires a 7 day cooldown after a restart of the discussion) and 
also an last call “Intent to Vote” announcement (at least 2 days before 
the vote) to make sure that the RFC is fresh in the minds of the voters:

https://github.com/php/policies/blob/main/feature-proposals.rst#discussion-phase

I'm also noticing that you made a number of significant changes 
(including increasing the version number) to the RFC text just today 
which folks did not yet have the chance to review and discuss before the 
vote:

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/add_values_method_to_backed_enum?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1763285697&rev2%5B1%5D=1768720119&difftype=sidebyside

… all while there still are “Open Issues” listed in the RFC. These 
should be resolved before the vote.

I therefore request the vote to be canceled for now and discussion 
restarted based on the updated version 1.2 of the RFC.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus