> On 15 Jun 2024, at 14:11, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] <imsop....@rwec.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I fundamentally disagree with this assertion.
>
> If somebody makes a valid point, it doesn't automatically become invalid
> because time has passed, or because nobody happens to repeat it in a later
> e-mail thread.
>
> If I copy and paste the content of each e-mail from the previous thread, does
> that make them "carry weight" again? What if I contact the authors of each,
> and ask them to do so? Is that a good use of anyone's time, when we can just
> read the archives?
>
>
>
>> I think enough time has passed that gauging the sentiment of today is valid
>> and worthwhile, especially if it has shifted (and we cannot know without
>> asking).
>
>
> I don't think "sentiment" is something we should place value on. As I said in
> my last e-mail, we should be weighing the merit of the arguments for and
> against, not the people who are making them.
>
> I don't see value in repeating the same arguments every X months or years,
> like appointing a different jury to try the same case.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Rowan Tommins
> [IMSoP]
If you appoint a different jury to try a 20 year old case, the decision of the
previous jury doesn't have any more weight than any other evidence on its own.
That's because society changes, law changes and people change. A 10 year old
discussion in the world of technology has little value to add and a lot of harm
to cause.
You may have core developers that voted no due to maintenance burden, but if
said maintainer is no longer active and new maintainers don't mind it, it's a
moot argument because people changed.
You may have no votes casted because at the time PHP technical debt couldn't
cope with such a change, which maybe isn't relevant anymore because the project
evolved.
You may have community leaders voting no because they inherently disagree with
the concept but if they have moved on to other endeavors and current PHP
community members like the concept, then society changes play a vital role in a
different outcome.
Ultimately I can agree with you that there is no point in rehashing the same
discussion under the same circumstances. But the last 10 years has completely
changed the development world enough that anything that old is worth rehashing
and I would even add that going through the archives is a double-edge sword
because you can either come out of it with a stronger argument for why the RFC
is good now or you can come out of it overwhelmed with negativity and a
polluted opinion on the type of barriers that you may think that exists but
that might be long gone
