Hey all, hey Tim
On 30. Aug 2025, at 03:21, Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be> wrote:Hi The current policy regarding how RFC are discussed and voted on is quite dated and no longer matches the current accepted practices of the RFC process. In the past there were several RFCs with a less-than-ideal course of discussion. Examples include RFCs being rushed through the process by less experienced contributors who are unaware that the two weeks of discussion is a *minimum* that can and often should be extended. In the weeks leading up to the feature freeze RFCs are rushed even by more experienced contributors trying to meet the deadline. This resulted in RFCs going to vote in an incomplete state, resulting in them being declined, wasting time of everyone involved when a little more discussion could've made the RFC succeed. I've thus written up a policy RFC to clarify the current policy regarding the RFC process, to use less ambiguous language and to formalize some of the current of the currently followed undocumented practices. Examples of those would be the heads-up email of an upcoming vote and the announcement of any relevant change to the RFC text on the list, so that folks become aware of new points to be discussed without needing to check the version history all the time. Please find the RFC at: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_discussion_and_vote And the PR at: https://github.com/php/policies/pull/23 As with all policy RFCs, the corresponding PR to the policies repository will be the authoritative source of the proposal and the RFC (and discussion) will only provide extra context. Please do not comment on the PR (except for minor typographical or phrasing clarification suggestions). For comments regarding the actual "policy" reply to this discussion thread for proper visibility instead and I'll make sure to incorporate them as appropriate. I intend to dogfood the proposed policy during discussion and voting of this RFC. Changes to the PR will be considered changes to the RFC text. To spell it out explicitly: This email marks the official start of the minimum discussion period of 2 weeks. Best regards Tim Düsterhus
I already commented on the PR[^1] but want to reiterate this comment.Right now the new wording of the RFC speaks of certain week-periods with a certain amount of hours in parentheses. Like "2 weeks (336 hours)".
While I understand the idea my nitpick to this was to not assume 86,400-second days. As the examples in the RFC explain quite understandable that the voting ends (earliest) at 16:00H when it started at 16:00 hours I would not put that into actual hours.
If we see that the number of hours elapsed is a reason to question the validity of a vote - and as far as I understand it that is what this is in essence trying to prevent - then in my opinion we have a different problem that is not going to be resolved based on the number of elapsed hours.
In addition, adding 2 weeks to a datetime will add (usually) 14 days to the date but the time will stay the same anyhow.
Hence I'd recommend removing the hours and just keep the weeks. My 0.02€ Cheers Andreas [^1]: https://github.com/php/policies/pull/23#discussion_r2313461292 -- ,,, (o o) +---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+ | Andreas Heigl | | mailto:andr...@heigl.org N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" | | https://andreas.heigl.org | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | https://hei.gl/appointmentwithandreas | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | GPG-Key: https://hei.gl/keyandreasheiglorg | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
