---------- Forwarded message --------- From: youkidearitai <youkideari...@gmail.com> Date: 2025年9月27日(土) 11:42 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Clarify discussion and voting period rules To: Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be>
2025年9月27日(土) 0:22 Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be>: > > Hi > > On 9/25/25 00:02, Rob Landers wrote: > > This goes back to what I was saying: pretty much any change can be > > justified as “a clarification” by an author. We can choose to accept the > > implication of a 2/3 majority, or challenge it. > > Absolutely, there is always some uncertainty when not treating something > as a major change. I explicitly spelled out my reasoning when making the > change, so that we as a community can discuss how we feel about this > type of change and to get some discussion precedent if a similar > situation arrives in the future. > > If it would've been a secondary vote, I would've treated it as a major > change, since in that case I would've considered that “Changing a voting > widget”. > > > I also noted you changed the text to mention that a vote can basically be > > restarted for any reason. This would allow an unscrupulous person to > > basically restart a vote if it isn’t going in the direction they want, > > without any reason other than an “issue” with the RFC. This means they can > > rely upon attrition to eventually pass an RFC that would otherwise not > > pass, bypassing the current “one year or with major changes” rule. > > Small correction: It's just half a year before an RFC may be reproposed. > > I don't think this is a significant risk: Casting a “No” is simple and I > expect the regular folks to notice if an RFC is repeatedly restarted for > no good reason. If it becomes clearly abusive, I would expect this to be > treated similarly to any other case of someone being abusive on the list. > > > For example, the nested classes RFC was clearly not going to pass. Had this > > policy existed, taking what feedback I had already gotten, I could have > > simply declared “an issue” and updated it with their feedback; restarting > > the vote. I personally wouldn’t do that, but this would explicitly allow > > that behavior. > > I agree with both Nick and Larry that I would be okay with that: 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: > https://externals.io/message/127791#127803 > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus Hi, Tim > 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: > https://externals.io/message/127791#127803 I set up an Under discussion for two weeks and sent a reminder email, so why did it say "Derick stopped it"? I went to vote after going through the official procedure, but for some reason I was suddenly told NO. My understanding is that he didn't take part in the discussion on "Under Discussion" and didn't even vote. Why is there such a difference in perception? Regards Yuya -- --------------------------- Yuya Hamada (tekimen) - https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info - https://github.com/youkidearitai ----------------------------- Oh, No. I'm sorry, I send only to Tim. Resend to Internals. Regards Yuya -- --------------------------- Yuya Hamada (tekimen) - https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info - https://github.com/youkidearitai -----------------------------
