Thanks Tim for the answer. Your replies went to the Spam folder. I don't know why.
I'll change the template as you suggested as soon as possible. On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 1:11 PM Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be> wrote: > Hi > > Am 2025-05-27 09:08, schrieb Dmitry Derepko: > > As Tim said, it needs at least a 2 week discussion period. > > > > > > Could you share the reference? > > I already did in my email: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto (“When > discussion ends, and a minimum period of two weeks has passed”). > > > Here it is. I've added the link to the RFC. > > > > It took me a while to find the link in the “References” section, because > that's not where I expected it based on other RFCs. Overall the RFC > diverges from the RFC template quite a bit. As an example, the “RFC > Impact” section is entirely missing. The “Voting Choices” section is as > well. The “Metadata” section at the top is formatted differently for no > reason (and still indicates that the RFC is a Draft). As far as I can > tell it's also not listed in the RFC overview at > https://wiki.php.net/rfc either. > > As a first-time RFC author, I would recommend you strictly following the > template and the “RFC How-To” to make sure that the RFC is complete and > follows proper process. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus > -- Dmitriy Derepko
