Hi
On 2026-07-16 12:55, Nick Sdot wrote:
after talking to Gina and Tim I would like to ask here if there would
be any objections against me, under "minor change", removing the
"deprecate static properties" part from my >Deprecate using "namespace"
as a class constant or static property name< contribution to the RFC --
hence limiting the scope.
Reason: for what my RFC intended deprecating using "namespace" as a
static class property is not actually required; and using "class" as
static property name is also legal although it is a reserved keyword.
Not deprecating "name" in class constants would roughly lead to -50%
from the impact analysis Juliette did.
For this bulk deprecation RFC where each proposal is fully independent,
I consider it acceptable to retract entire proposals until the last
minute without being considered a change.
For your case of removing an *independent sub-proposal of a deprecation
proposal*, I consider an “informal poll” as you did to be acceptable to
seek agreement on the narrowing - but any objection must be considered a
hard-no. Personally I don't object against this specific change.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
