Re: [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change

On 14.08.20 03:41, Levi Morrison via internals wrote:

I just want to make sure I understand: there are people who think we haven't discussed the syntax for attributes yet? I assume this is a serious email, but I can't fathom why anyone cares. We've discussed this subject soo much...

I am kind of new to the Internals discussions, which might be the reason why I actually read through all the RFC process material, but I recommend anyone to do so too. I will highlight the relevant parts as succinctly as possible: In https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto - How to create an RFC - it says: * When your RFC is ready for discussion, change the status of your RFC page to "Under Discussion", and send an mail to internals@lists.php.net introducing your RFC. * Listen to the feedback, and try to answer/resolve all questions. Update your RFC to document all the issues and discussions. Cover both the positive and negative arguments. Put the RFC URL into all your replies. * When discussion ends, and a minimum period of two weeks has passed since you mailed internals@lists.php.net in step 4, consider one day heads up mail on the mailing list and then you can move your RFC to “Voting” status. There should be no open questions in the RFC. The two weeks discussion period is specifically about the RFC itself, not the discussion at large, which does make sense to me, as you discuss a specific proposal and are trying to include all relevant information into that RFC, so people voting on the RFC do not have to read through all emails in Internals to get the information - it should be on the RFC page. This is something objectively lacking with this RFC. In https://wiki.php.net/RFC/voting - Voting on PHP features - it says: * Proposal is formally initiated by creating an RFC on PHP wiki and announcing it on the list. * There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required. Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week. The effective date will not be when the RFC was published on the PHP wiki - but when it was announced on internals@lists.php.net, by the author, with the intention of voting on it. This period can be extended when circumstances warrant it - such as major conferences, key people being busy, force major events, or when discussion merits it - but should never be less than minimal time. * This does not preclude discussion on the merits on any idea or proposal on the list without formally submitting it as a proposal, but the discussion time is measured only since the formal discussion announcement as described above. Here it also specifically mentions a discussion period of two weeks after the RFC was created and announced on the list, yet it mentions it can be only one week if it "does not touch the language". An RFC with a syntax change would definitely touch the language in my opinion. It also mentions again that the discussion period is after the announcement on the list of the RFC - not after the discussion began about the topic in general. The RFC has to exist and be mentioned with the intent on voting on it. Now, I don't know all the history of past RFCs, and maybe some of these rules were not always followed, which someone alluded to in another email. Yet in my understanding of the process, if nobody mentions that timeframes were not heeded or that RFCs are incomplete, it seems likely that there is already a large concensus around the topic, and nobody cares about the details of the process. This is fine, and no harm is done, although it might be good to remember the rules just to be consistent. If on the other hand people reference the documents that should steer the RFC process and there is a clear violation of those, and if there are multiple people who feel their points have not been included in an RFC, then it makes sense to actually read through the RFC documents again and follow them as intended, as obviously the intent of these documents are different from what is happening. Something else to point out, on https://wiki.php.net/rfc at the top it says: * An RFC is effectively “owned” by the person that created it. If you want to make changes, get permission from the creator. If no agreement can be found, the only course of action is to create a competing RFC. In this case, the old RFC page should be modified to become an intermediate page that points to all the competing RFC's. This might be an alternative, if the many discussion points are not included in this RFC and it therefore remains incomplete, to make a competing RFC. Not sure if this has ever been done, but it is on the main RFC overview page, although it seems sad if that would be necessary. I would like to mention that I would help any efforts to make this or another RFC about a possible attribute syntax change as information-complete as possible. For me this is not about the syntax, but about properly thinking about the syntax (and discussing all ramifications) and gathering as much information about each syntax and its possible pros/cons/outcomes as possible. Many emails in Internals have changed my mind in one way or the other, so that kind of information not being included in the RFC will lead to people basing their decisions on incomplete information, which seems bad to me.