On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:25 AM Sara Golemon <poll...@php.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:48 AM Theodore Brown wrote: > > > It has just come to my attention that this RFC was rushed to vote > > after less than the minimum two week period required after it was > > brought up on list. Furthermore, discussion was still very active at > > that time - I certainly didn't have a chance to respond to some of > > the emails before voting began. > > > > Joe first announced this RFC on Tuesday, July 28 at 9:47 AM, and the > > vote was started this Monday at 3:41 AM, less than 12 days, 18 hours > > after the announcement. Per the voting rules: > > So, 30 hours short of 2 weeks. I'm going to ascribe good intentions > in trying to get the issue resolved in the minimal timeframe. The > fact active discussion was ongoing makes this a questionable choice, > but in my opinion, purely on a matter of time, quibbling over 30 hours > is splitting hairs. Maybe compromise on adding time to the vote end > period so that the total is greater than 4 weeks? > > > What should be done to prevent this rule from being violated? > > Vigilance. You're right to raise the concern. And let's wag a finger > over it at least. If others agree that it's premature, we can stop > the vote, but I'm not inclined to disrupt the process over such a > small variance. On top of violating the minimum two week discussion period, I believe this RFC also breaks the rule on resurrecting failed proposals. When I authored the Shorter Attribute Syntax RFC, I specifically did not include a voting option for `@:`, since this syntax was declined, and my understanding was that a six month waiting period is required before resurrecting rejected proposals. [1] But if we can vote again on `#[]` and `<<>>` after they were declined, why can't we also vote again for `@:`? This syntax has the advantage of being equally short as `@@` without any BC break. I'm really disappointed and disillusioned with how the process has been handled for this RFC. It seems like the rules are arbitrarily going out the window in order to keep voting until the desired result is reached. What is the point of having rules if they aren't followed or enforced? If anyone else is troubled by the precedent being set by this RFC, please vote No on the primary vote. I'm not sure what other recourse we have at this point. Sincerely, Theodore [1]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting#resurrecting_rejected_proposals -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
