Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130514
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 11:08:06 +0100 (BST)
To: Ben Ramsey <ramsey@php.net>
cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Release Manager Selection
In-Reply-To: <20260328063516.0050F1A00BD@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <ec442d87-2399-7d21-cdc2-3bc6a4477455@php.net>
References: <093f97b0805b43ae640d80b9e06eb203@bastelstu.be> <20260328063516.0050F1A00BD@lists.php.net>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-60379192-1774951686=:119593"
From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323329-60379192-1774951686=:119593
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Sat, 28 Mar 2026, Ben Ramsey wrote:

> On 3/27/26 13:15, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
> >=20
> > please find the following RFC that is intended to clarify the=20
> > =E2=80=9CRelease Manager Selection=E2=80=9D policy for future PHP versi=
ons:
> >=20
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release_manager_selection_policy
> >=20
> > It is written in response to this email in the PHP 8.6 RM selection=20
> > thread that pointed out possible ambiguity with regard to who is=20
> > allowed to apply as a RM and as to how to interpret the results of=20
> > the vote: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130402
>=20
> I'm not sure I like the notion or language of "hands-off" vs.=20
> "hands-on" release managers. What we've effectively practiced since at=20
> least PHP 8.1 is this:
>=20
> 1. At least 3 RMs per release
> 2. At least 1 of the RMs MUST be a veteran to advise the others
> 3. At least 2 of the RMs MUST be active during their tenure
>=20
> The RMs themselves decide how they want to organize their schedules. I=20
> don't think the policy needs to be much more rigid than this.
>=20
> It's okay for more than 1 RM to be a veteran, provided at least one of=20
> the 3 RMs is a veteran.
>=20
> I think it's okay for someone to be an RM on up to 2 actively=20
> supported versions of PHP at the same time. They'll need to work=20
> together with their fellow RMs to ensure their duties are adequately=20
> covered, but I disagree with designating whether anyone is "hands-on"=20
> or "hands-off."

I agree with all of these points.

I don't think we even should say that a "veteran RM being one of the RMs=20
of the *previous* PHP version". A previously active one should be fine=20
too.

cheers,
Derick
--8323329-60379192-1774951686=:119593--