Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Literal Scalar Types
Bob Weinand <[email protected]> Sun, 26 Jul 2026 20:58:36 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.php.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <AMBPR07MB12024BB4CE256328040629F6CE2CD2@AMBPR07MB12024.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> |
--------------A3Gwdk0tz0fjHDd7ijh80JD8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hey Juris,
On 26.7.2026 20:15:55, Juris Evertovskis wrote:
>
> On 2026-07-23 08:44, Seifeddine Gmati wrote:
>
>> Hello internals,
>>
>> I am retracting this vote: I opened it prematurely, in violation of
>> the voting prerequisites in the Feature Proposals policy. I did not
>> post an Intent to Vote message at least two days in advance, and
>> today's 1.0 update to the RFC text is a Minor change announcement,
>> which starts a seven-day Cooldown Period during which no vote may be
>> called.
>
> Hey all,
>
> I'm a frequent reader/follower of this list as well as an occasional
> participant and a one-time RFC-attempter. As such I never felt like
> I'm "internal enough" to comment on the process. But since no one else
> seems to be bothered by it, I would like to bring this up after all...
>
> The "new" process (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_discussion_and_vote)
> feels very discouraging to me. All the mandatory cooldowns, cooldown
> resets on minor changes, announcements to vote, cooldown resets on
> inactive discussions appears to me like bureaucratic hoops that people
> have to jump through. The process was hard and daunting enough before
> this.
>
> I understand the extremes that the rules are preventing like someone
> suddenly launching a vote for an RFC that has been dormant for 20
> months. But in practice many of the mandatory cooldown resets,
> activity bumps and other formal messages appear like only serving the
> process. This case in particular feels very disappointing to me. The
> discussion was done, the RFC text got finalized and it was a great
> point in time to launch the vote on the finalized RFC. I see no
> benefit of this setback of another week.
>
> BR,
> Juris
>
I fully agree on this, and that's why I voted against that proposal back
then.
On the other hand, we seem to have some contributors, who, sort of
intentionally want to slow down this, to not have the list overloaded
and have ample time to catch up with everything.
You sort of have to decide what you optimize for - easier for authors,
or easier for commenters. But I think in this case it went way overboard
in terms of strictness.
Bob
--------------A3Gwdk0tz0fjHDd7ijh80JD8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hey Juris,</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26.7.2026 20:15:55, Juris
Evertovskis wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email protected]">
<p id="reply-intro">On 2026-07-23 08:44, Seifeddine Gmati wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<div id="replybody1">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hello internals,<br>
<br>
I am retracting this vote: I opened it prematurely, in
violation of the voting prerequisites in the Feature
Proposals policy. I did not post an Intent to Vote message
at least two days in advance, and today's 1.0 update to
the RFC text is a Minor change announcement, which starts
a seven-day Cooldown Period during which no vote may be
called.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Hey all,</p>
<p>I'm a frequent reader/follower of this list as well as an
occasional participant and a one-time RFC-attempter. As such I
never felt like I'm "internal enough" to comment on the process.
But since no one else seems to be bothered by it, I would like
to bring this up after all...</p>
<p>The "new" process (<a href="https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_discussion_and_vote" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_discussion_and_vote</a>)
feels very discouraging to me. All the mandatory cooldowns,
cooldown resets on minor changes, announcements to vote,
cooldown resets on inactive discussions appears to me like
bureaucratic hoops that people have to jump through. The process
was hard and daunting enough before this.</p>
<p>I understand the extremes that the rules are preventing like
someone suddenly launching a vote for an RFC that has been
dormant for 20 months. But in practice many of the mandatory
cooldown resets, activity bumps and other formal messages appear
like only serving the process. This case in particular feels
very disappointing to me. The discussion was done, the RFC text
got finalized and it was a great point in time to launch the
vote on the finalized RFC. I see no benefit of this setback of
another week.</p>
<p>BR,<br>
Juris</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I fully agree on this, and that's why I voted against that
proposal back then.</p>
<p>On the other hand, we seem to have some contributors, who, sort
of intentionally want to slow down this, to not have the list
overloaded and have ample time to catch up with everything.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>You sort of have to decide what you optimize for - easier for
authors, or easier for commenters. But I think in this case it
went way overboard in terms of strictness.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Bob</p>
</body>
</html>
--------------A3Gwdk0tz0fjHDd7ijh80JD8--