Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129818
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 18:20:38 +0000
To: internals@lists.php.net
CC: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] True Async RFC 1.7
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAMW7n8BJcC-X-sA0NB_oQLfzry+331TfO1uhvNDGZcoSxe7bFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMW7n8B9XHzF5ND21-hNYtw26EnE+0b+W0Nv=wb_ayMmu4CbKw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMW7n8C1m08+pKKYBGkMnNZmGmu-_kkxS-r_SCuRupBY+RHe5A@mail.gmail.com> <CANCsWvfXWDjdmKFFQvV0Ger6yNVSfOhQqnbyTr7bEQHSjmXyLg@mail.gmail.com> <79CDB2CC-E397-436E-B5A2-10DA1E451A97@rwec.co.uk> <CAMW7n8BJcC-X-sA0NB_oQLfzry+331TfO1uhvNDGZcoSxe7bFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D427F18D-CDEC-4DDE-8169-71F8156F2E48@rwec.co.uk>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")

On 21 January 2026 17:13:34 GMT, Edmond Dantes <edmond=2Eht@gmail=2Ecom> wr=
ote:
>> The idea of a "working group" was discussed, but no process was establi=
shed, no "charter", no milestones=2E Edmond has been doing an amazing amoun=
t of work,
>> and I will repeat that I have huge respect for that effort=2E But if yo=
u drop an encyclopedia on someone's desk and say "discuss", is it really su=
rprising that people don't know what to say?
>
>As for the working group, it was created=2E


Unless I missed something, there was never a discussion of what a Working =
Group should look like, what its aims were, how it would report back to the=
 mailing list, etc=2E

If the WG didn't have the backing of this list, it doesn't solve the probl=
em of how this list can understand and approve the proposal=2E



>In an ideal world, I would like to be confident that everyone who will
>vote on this RFC clearly understands the foundation of what PHP is
>becoming:
>* a language oriented toward single-threaded concurrent execution,
>* with actors for multi-processor interaction=2E
>
>That=E2=80=99s how I see the end goal=2E


Defining that end goal, in my mind, would be the first job of a Working Gr=
oup=2E Then presenting it, and making sure the wider community agrees with =
that goal=2E

Right now, a "No" vote on the RFC could mean anything from "I disagree wit=
h the vision completely" to "I don't like the name of the 5th function on p=
age 18"=2E

And so everyone ends up frustrated, because we never worked out where to s=
tart, or where we're trying to get to=2E



Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]