Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130473
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2026 11:56:22 +0100
To: =?utf-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>, php internals
 <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <aff13c4c-05ec-4065-9ab6-4606a76828ed@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <093f97b0805b43ae640d80b9e06eb203@bastelstu.be>
References: <093f97b0805b43ae640d80b9e06eb203@bastelstu.be>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Release Manager Selection
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="69c7b3dc_57e4ccaf_11149"
From: jordikroon@me.com (Jordi Kroon)

--69c7b3dc_57e4ccaf_11149
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi Tim,

Thank you for this R=46C. Though I do have some concerns towards the new =
direction.

What was the initial idea to split between rookies and veterans=3F

As a candidate for 8.6 it feels as a chance/opportunity=C2=A0=C2=A0to get=
 more involved, and to build up experience as a RM (and more) as opposed =
to a veteran who already had the opportunity to do so.

With the new policy it would essentially allow only veterans to be RM wit=
h 2 hands-on and 1 hands-off and perhaps include more favoritism to a mor=
e experienced RM rather than someone with a clean record. The terminology=
 of rookie lowers the bar a little to allow this in my opinion.

The veteran is there to advise the others. I don=E2=80=99t see why this n=
eeds to be hands-off. As long as there are always 2 hands-on available. S=
o to that I am in favour of Ben=E2=80=99s wording.

=E2=80=94
Regards,
Jordi
On Mar 27, 2026 at 19:17 +0100, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim=40bastelstu.be>, =
wrote:
> Hi
>
> please find the following R=46C that is intended to clarify the =E2=80=9C=
Release
> Manager Selection=E2=80=9D policy for future PHP versions:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release=5Fmanager=5Fselection=5Fpolicy
>
> It is written in response to this email in the PHP 8.6 RM selection
> thread that pointed out possible ambiguity with regard to who is allowe=
d
> to apply as a RM and as to how to interpret the results of the vote:
> https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130402
>
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus

--69c7b3dc_57e4ccaf_11149
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<html xmlns=3D=22http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml=22>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name=3D=22messageBodySection=22>
<div dir=3D=22auto=22>Hi Tim,<br />
&=23160;<br />
Thank you for this R=46C. Though I do have some concerns towards the new =
direction.<br />
&=23160;<br />
What was the initial idea to split between rookies and veterans=3F<br />
<br />
As a candidate for 8.6 it feels as a chance/opportunity&=23160;&=23160;to=
 get more involved, and to build up experience as a RM (and more) as oppo=
sed to a veteran who already had the opportunity to do so.&=23160;<br />
<br />
With the new policy it would essentially allow only veterans to be RM wit=
h 2 hands-on and 1 hands-off and perhaps include more favoritism to a mor=
e experienced RM rather than someone with a clean record. The terminology=
 of rookie lowers the bar a little to allow this in my opinion.&=23160;<b=
r />
<br />
The veteran is there to advise the others. I don=E2=80=99t see why this n=
eeds to be hands-off. As long as there are always 2 hands-on available. S=
o to that I am in favour of Ben=E2=80=99s wording.&=23160;<br />
<br />
=E2=80=94&=23160;<br />
Regards,<br />
Jordi</div>
</div>
<div name=3D=22messageReplySection=22>On Mar 27, 2026 at 19:17 +0100, Tim=
 D=C3=BCsterhus &lt;tim=40bastelstu.be&gt;, wrote:<br />
<blockquote type=3D=22cite=22>Hi<br />
<br />
please find the following R=46C that is intended to clarify the =E2=80=9C=
Release<br />
Manager Selection=E2=80=9D policy for future PHP versions:<br />
<br />
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release=5Fmanager=5Fselection=5Fpolicy<br />
<br />
It is written in response to this email in the PHP 8.6 RM selection<br />=

thread that pointed out possible ambiguity with regard to who is allowed<=
br />
to apply as a RM and as to how to interpret the results of the vote:<br /=
>
https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130402<br />
<br />
Best regards<br />
Tim D=C3=BCsterhus<br /></blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--69c7b3dc_57e4ccaf_11149--