2025年10月5日(日) 10:53 Nick <[email protected]>: > > > On 4. Oct 2025, at 16:02, youkidearitai <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2025年10月3日(金) 23:10 Tim Düsterhus <[email protected]>: > > > 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 -----------------------------
