On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:47 AM Andreas Leathley <a.leath...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 13.08.20 15:17, Theodore Brown wrote: > > The discussion thread you're referencing did not announce an RFC. Per > > the voting rules, a "Proposal is formally initiated by creating an > > RFC on PHP wiki and announcing it on the list". After that there must > > be a minimum two week discussion period before voting starts. The > > Shorter Attribute Syntax Change RFC failed to meet this requirement. > > After reading https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto it is stated clearly there > that an RFC has to be created and be "Under Discussion" for at least two > weeks. So you were actually wrong that the RFC was one day early - it > was at least 8 days early, as the RFC was created and announced on the > 4th of August and then put to vote on the 10th of August. Indeed, it looks like you are right. I missed that Joe withdrew his RFC on August 2nd: https://externals.io/message/111218#111288. The declined RFC can still be viewed via a past page revision. [1] Apparently Derick then authored a new proposal under the same wiki URL and moved it under discussion on August 4th, with a request that people submit patches for other syntax alternatives to include in the vote. [2] So the first date this RFC could be eligible for voting is Tuesday August 18th. Sara and Gabriel, can you confirm this is the case? The RFC was then moved to voting on August 10th, less than a week later, before there was a reasonable period to submit patches, and while there was still significant ongoing and unresolved discussion. > It also states in this document: > > * Listen to the feedback, and try to answer/resolve all questions > * Update your RFC to document all the issues and discussions > * Cover both the positive and negative arguments > > Can anybody say with a straight face that this has been done in this > case? Just one example: It still states in the RFC that the ending > symbol is inconsistent with the language, although multiple people > argued another viewpoint about this part with detailed explanations. > This kind of discussion belongs in an RFC to show both sides, not > just the one that suits the person writing the RFC. Hear, hear. If we must vote again on the syntax, can the RFC at least fairly present all the pros and cons for each alternative (including details about the BC breaks), with a discussion section summarizing the viewpoints brought up on list? This is what I attempted to do in the original Shorter Attribute Syntax RFC. [3] Best regards, Theodore [1]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change?rev=1596407928 [2]: https://externals.io/message/111312#111312 [3]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax#alternative_syntax -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
