Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130624
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a45f992c-a4c1-4bcd-9e3a-ade0ec3fc0c5@app.fastmail.com>
 <20260412165826.114311A00BD@lists.php.net> <8c0dc770-8009-4710-9764-ae31f7895e3e@gmail.com>
 <ba14e341-ddc5-43a9-ae56-b4bfff58d614@app.fastmail.com> <CAPTD5yEoXxasWGt30SeLkAMNYrVqV+jJR__tOfC5n_ho5Gj=ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <2032e8a4-79d7-49ef-a76c-790c377bbf4c@app.fastmail.com> <CAPTD5yHEeQsyjG2pfkEQ-Pig+sBJ8=GJGCguT8zhyPx0iRGe+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOiAqpSfhj6A6fQm4mwNscb5FayYkW8iKxG-UP1N4tpmyGpr1g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOiAqpSfhj6A6fQm4mwNscb5FayYkW8iKxG-UP1N4tpmyGpr1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 15:06:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CADjdLZ+W_gu+K0Ek7a_cz3P18EMqj8X0bKJErXdZSqLsdiCf4A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net
To: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: contact@developer-rob.co.uk (Robert Humphries)

> Perhaps the RFC would be better served with (a) greater context (includin=
g efforts at outreach & recovery, and (b) separate voting options for remov=
ing the link (a no-brainer IMHO), and abandoning the platform entirely?

I think this is the right approach; but as importantly as two RFCs.

1. The current RFC/vote. At present, the current account is inactive
and so linking to it from any of the PHP main pages is of limited
benefit at the moment. For this RFC, the considerations on if it
should be in use or not can be ignored - the core question is should
the website link to a _currently_ inactive page?
2. If anyone thinks it is worth having an official PHP X/Twitter
account (the current one or a new one), then they can raise a further
PHP (regardless if the first one passes / doesn't pass / is abandoned)
where there can be discussion and a vote on that as a matter. If the
first RFC has proceeded to a vote and has passed, if the second RFC
passed it would be trivial to add the link back in (to the relevant
account as per that RFC).

On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 11:03=E2=80=AFAM Yitzchok Willroth <coderabbi@gmail=
.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2026, 3:05=E2=80=AFPM Jorg Sowa <jorg.sowa@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>>
>> > All of PHP's "official" social media accounts are technically "run by =
some dude we're on good terms with."
>>
>> So I understand that the PHP Group granted the right to represent PHP on=
 specific social media platforms, and that the person holding this responsi=
bility, instead of passing it on to a successor, unilaterally decided to st=
op contributing. This is not a proper approach, and the account should be r=
eturned to the appropriate entity regardless of the individual=E2=80=99s pe=
rsonal views. Framing the account as "abandoned" shifts the narrative and m=
isleads the discussion into treating this as an acceptable outcome.
>>
>> So, IMO, I think the access was lost, and this is a original problem.
>>
>> > I don't even know what this means.
>
>
> Perhaps the RFC would be better served with (a) greater context (includin=
g efforts at outreach & recovery, and (b) separate voting options for remov=
ing the link (a no-brainer IMHO), and abandoning the platform entirely?