Re: [RFC] [VOTE]ValueError Conversions for PHP 8.6

Thank you for your feedback. I have added an "Abstain" option as well. *Bukka* also shared a suggestion regarding this RFC. Please check the latest message here: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/20971#issuecomment-3923902448 On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 5:26 PM Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote: > Hi > > Am 2026-03-03 09:37, schrieb Muhammed Arshid KV: > > This is to announce the opening of the vote for the *ValueError > > Conversions > > RFC*. > > > > RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php86_valueerror_conversions4�Bʱ�]�]�� > > �� > > Discussion thread: https://externals.io/message/130090 > > > > The vote will be open for 2 weeks (and a few hours), closing on March > > 17th > > at midnight UTC. > > There are no voting options available in the RFC for reasons that are > unclear to me. Looking at the page’s source code I don't see an obvious > mistake with regard to the markup for the voting doodle. > > I'm however noting that the options do not include the “Abstain” option > that is required per our policy: > > > https://github.com/php/policies/blob/main/feature-proposals.rst#required-majority > > I am also unable to find an “Intent to Vote” announcement for this RFC > in the mailing list archives and the corresponding discussion thread is > only 12 days old as of now (which is less than the cooldown period of 14 > days after the initial proposal). As such the start of the vote is > violating our current policy in multiple points. > > I also don't think that this RFC has properly been discussed and I don't > feel it is productive to individually vote on every case of properly > validating input parameters. This warrants a generic decision, such as > the one proposed by Gina in her “Exempt input type and value validation > from BC Break policy” RFC: > https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130221 > > Given the clear policy violation regarding the vote, I request the vote > be canceled. I would also recommend to withdraw the RFC in favor of > Gina’s - but that is your decision as the RFC author of course. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 5:26 PM Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote: > Hi > > Am 2026-03-03 09:37, schrieb Muhammed Arshid KV: > > This is to announce the opening of the vote for the *ValueError > > Conversions > > RFC*. > > > > RFC: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php86_valueerror_conversions > > Discussion thread: https://externals.io/message/130090 > > > > The vote will be open for 2 weeks (and a few hours), closing on March > > 17th > > at midnight UTC. > > There are no voting options available in the RFC for reasons that are > unclear to me. Looking at the page’s source code I don't see an obvious > mistake with regard to the markup for the voting doodle. > > I'm however noting that the options do not include the “Abstain” option > that is required per our policy: > > > https://github.com/php/policies/blob/main/feature-proposals.rst#required-majority > > I am also unable to find an “Intent to Vote” announcement for this RFC > in the mailing list archives and the corresponding discussion thread is > only 12 days old as of now (which is less than the cooldown period of 14 > days after the initial proposal). As such the start of the vote is > violating our current policy in multiple points. > > I also don't think that this RFC has properly been discussed and I don't > feel it is productive to individually vote on every case of properly > validating input parameters. This warrants a generic decision, such as > the one proposed by Gina in her “Exempt input type and value validation > from BC Break policy” RFC: > https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130221 > > Given the clear policy violation regarding the vote, I request the vote > be canceled. I would also recommend to withdraw the RFC in favor of > Gina’s - but that is your decision as the RFC author of course. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus >