> On 5. Oct 2025, at 09:21, youkidearitai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 2025年10月5日(日) 10:53 Nick <[email protected]>:
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> Hi, Tim, Nick
>
> I sincerely apologize.
> I am misunderstanding Tim's RFC.
>
> I realized this would not interfere with anyone.
> Sorry for the misunderstanding. I take that back what I said "NO".
> It's called "YES".
>
> Regards
> Yuya
>
> --
> ---------------------------
> Yuya Hamada (tekimen)
> - https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info
> - https://github.com/youkidearitai
> ——————————————
Lovely. Keep up the good work. 🤝
