Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107098
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 07:48:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOwTYAu5vCGMw4Dp0v90fGD9OGm6X0dc42iJV35bk1Df_yr_2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, rasmus@php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001671d60592910912"
Subject: Defining the PHP Group
From: krakjoe@php.net (Joe Watkins)

--0000000000001671d60592910912
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Morning internals,

There is confusion among the community, and contained in the documented
history of PHP on the wider internet.

The Wikipedia states that PHP is developed by the PHP Group, in saying this
it is (must be) referring to internals as a whole, but our own
documentation names members of the group - who aren't even around mostly.

I think we need to clarify what exactly is the purpose of the PHP Group
today, does anyone want to attempt to do that ?

Whatever it's purpose, if it has one, we need to make clear at this time
that there are no vetos: As Rasmus clarified, PHP is driven by the people
who write PHP: No member of any group or company, historical or otherwise,
has any veto powers, they cannot, and they must not behave as if they do.

I would like to update the introduction to the Voting RFC:

The development of PHP is community driven by the RFC process described in
this document. Anyone may initiate an RFC for any subject. At the end of
the RFC process a vote is held among PHP developers to determine if the
proposal is to be accepted.

Should a proposal be accepted, the developers of PHP are committed to
making the change.

In some circumstances, merging an implementation into the source code of
PHP may be delayed because of shortcomings in that implementation. In these
cases, resolution of these shortcomings is the responsibility of the
proposer.

Should a proposal be accepted without an implementation, it is the
responsibility of the proposer to provide one.

Does anyone object to any of those words ?

Do we need to vote on changing the introduction (I'm happy to start an rfc
for this, if necessary) ?

Cheers
Joe

--0000000000001671d60592910912--