> On 4. Oct 2025, at 16:02, youkidearitai <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2025年10月3日(金) 23:10 Tim Düsterhus <[email protected]>: >> >> Hi >> >> Am 2025-09-29 14:13, schrieb youkidearitai: >>> Anyway, I thought about this topic few days. >>> As long as there are people who don't take part in the discussion in >>> "Under Discussion" phase, I'll say no to this topic. >>> >>> I was concerned that "Clarify " would put people who are not native >>> English at a disadvantage (I'm writing use Google translate too). >>> This will not clear the concerns. >>> (However, I don't have grant for vote an RFC) >>> >>> First, we must join to discussion in "Under Discussion" phase. >> >> As mentioned in my previous email, I believe there is a >> misunderstanding. My RFC is not intended to make it harder to make RFCs >> or to put folks who are not native speakers of English at a disadvantage >> (I am not a native speaker myself). It is formalizing some rules around >> the length of the discussion period to ensure there is sufficient time >> for folks to provide feedback after every change made. >> >> Looking at your RFC specifically, you would have needed to do the >> following things differently: >> >> - You made minor clarification changes on 2025-06-27. You would have >> needed to mention them on the list and wait for 7 days before starting >> the initial vote. >> - Similarly for the revision, you removed the `$strength` parameter on >> 2025-07-15. This was a major change which you announced on the list, but >> you would have needed to wait 14 days before starting the vote, you only >> waited 10 days. >> - And on 2025-07-22 there was some clarification, which was not >> announced on the list. >> - You would have needed to add a link to the mailing list discussion to >> the RFC itself. >> >> Everything else was already compliant from what I see. I think you can >> see how “announcing changes and waiting a little” is not significantly >> changing or complicating the RFC process. >> >> Best regards >> Tim Düsterhus > > > I can't be convinced about this matter. > It was a terrible pressure to be suddenly voting with no one to give > us advice on what we should have an under Discussion discussion. > This only appears to justify the mistakes they have made. > > This will put me at a major disadvantage. > I couldn't agree with your reply. I have to say that it's NO after all. > > Regards > Yuya > > -- > --------------------------- > Yuya Hamada (tekimen) > - https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info > - https://github.com/youkidearitai > ——————————————
Hey Yuya. Follow up on what we communicated off-list. I will hopefully can summarise what Tim means in plain English. Tim wrote: > If you realized less than 2 days into the vote that you didn't properly take > the feedback into account and then *do* take the feedback into account, I'd > consider this a success story rather than a failure. > In fact we had just that for PHP 8.5. The “Add locale for case insensitive > grapheme functions” RFC had gotten little feedback during the discussion and > during the vote, Derick mentioned that the proposal was insufficient to make > an educated decision. The vote was then canceled and later (successfully) > restarted: Tim is not targeting your RFC negatively. Tim is using your RFC to show when canceling a vote can be good. Tim is supporting what you did. Tim is not planning for the future to disallow what you did. Tim is confirming what you did should officially be allowed. Tim wrote: > My policy RFC is explicitly saying that canceling the vote in cases like this > is allowed. Tim again confirms that what you did should be officially allowed. Tim wrote: > Looking at your RFC specifically, you would have needed to do the following > things differently: > > - You made minor clarification changes on 2025-06-27. You would have needed > to mention them on the list and wait for 7 days before starting the initial > vote. > - Similarly for the revision, you removed the `$strength` parameter on > 2025-07-15. This was a major change which you announced on the list, but you > would have needed to wait 14 days before starting the vote, you only waited > 10 days. > - And on 2025-07-22 there was some clarification, which was not announced on > the list. > - You would have needed to add a link to the mailing list discussion to the > RFC itself. > > Everything else was already compliant from what I see. I think you can see > how “announcing changes and waiting a little” is not significantly changing > or complicating the RFC process. Tim is not saying you did wrong. Tim is showing examples for what will be different in the future (if this RFC is accepted) Tim is telling you that your RFC handling was good. Tim is showing that your RFC handling would not be much different in the future (if this RFC is accepted) -- I hope this helps to also solve the misunderstanding on-list. 🙏 Cheers, Nick
