Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129834
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 22:22:29 +0000
To: 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: <CAMW7n8DHhfDKciJxRuvFFS-X6ojVE9D00frTCSV65HYAfNEmFw@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> <D427F18D-CDEC-4DDE-8169-71F8156F2E48@rwec.co.uk> <CAMW7n8DHhfDKciJxRuvFFS-X6ojVE9D00frTCSV65HYAfNEmFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AF0B7890-F3EB-4FC9-8C8B-603C965E3A1D@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 19:12:10 GMT, Edmond Dantes <edmond=2Eht@gmail=2Ecom> wr=
ote:
>> Unless I missed something, there was never a discussion of what a Worki=
ng Group should look like, what its aims were, how it would report back to =
the mailing list, etc=2E
>
>Yes, we don=E2=80=99t have a working group like that=2E And I=E2=80=99m a=
fraid I don=E2=80=99t
>know how it could come into existence=2E
>I don=E2=80=99t have the authority to create "such" a group, and I=E2=80=
=99m not aware
>of who does=2E


Indeed, nobody does, and that is a problem=2E It's not an insurmountable p=
roblem though: we just have to bootstrap our way towards one=2E

A lot of management processes recognise that sometimes you have to step ba=
ck and not just talk about how to build things, but talk about how to talk =
about building things=2E Ridiculous as it seems, sometimes you do need a me=
eting called "Project Planning Planning"=2E

So in this case, we need to start from what we *do* have: this list, and t=
he RFC process=2E We can have a discussion on the list, leading to a policy=
 RFC, about what "Working Groups" could be used for, how one would be set u=
p, what powers and responsibilities they would have relative to existing pr=
ocesses, etc=2E Once we've agreed that policy, there *will* be someone with=
 the authority to create a WG for True Async=2E

(Or maybe during the discussion we decide "Working Group" is the wrong nam=
e and concept, but we agree *some* new process for Project Planning, or Roa=
dmapping, or whatever=2E And then *that* process is available for True Asyn=
c=2E)

That may seem a bit tedious and bureaucratic, but I can't see any other wa=
y of tackling a change of this magnitude and importance=2E 25 years ago, a =
couple of Israeli students could come and say "we've got some bold ideas of=
 turning this web page toolkit into a proper programming language", and jus=
t get on with it; but now, every decision we make affects millions of users=
, and becomes immensely difficult to undo=2E



Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]