Re: [RFC] Clarify discussion and voting period rules

> On 5. Oct 2025, at 09:21, youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2025年10月5日(日) 10:53 Nick <php@nicksdot.dev>: >> >> >> On 4. Oct 2025, at 16:02, youkidearitai <youkidearitai@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 2025年10月3日(金) 23:10 Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be>: >> >> >> 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. 🤝