Re: [RFC] Clarify discussion and voting period rules

2025年9月27日(土) 22:58 youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com>: > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: youkidearitai <youkidearitai@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 <tim@bastelstu.be> > > > 2025年9月27日(土) 0:22 Tim Düsterhus <tim@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 > ----------------------------- Hi, Internals 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. Regards Yuya -- --------------------------- Yuya Hamada (tekimen) - https://tekitoh-memdhoi.info - https://github.com/youkidearitai -----------------------------