Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130738
Feedback-ID: ia2404087:Fastmail
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 01 May 2026 11:54:37 -0700
To: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <6b55da44-4a34-46fe-89d7-09ae0458ffd9@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5B53C3AF-CE50-4F5A-A404-F27067E0042C@icloud.com>
References: 
 <CALrFCSwr=aK649H2Om2=Vcrfz642JsiNBfCgDVY8U1Z27KDcNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6s+ob5=eeNj7CU+kacUg6xXQaabZCN6v_j6spz69A5tTwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BC48A843-CED3-4EAA-B63B-C40EF91DF695@pmjones.io>
 <5c3b861a-f3ce-476a-8a24-d059069506d8@gmail.com>
 <5B53C3AF-CE50-4F5A-A404-F27067E0042C@icloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: jimw@trainedmonkey.com ("Jim Winstead")

On Fri, May 1, 2026, at 5:40 AM, Paul Jones wrote:
>> On May 1, 2026, at 05:27, Alex Pierstoval Rock <pierstoval@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Jim & all,
>>> 
>>> Currently, the RFC states:
>>> 
>>>> due to to the current nature of the site, there is no reason for the project to have a presence there
>>> This is unclear -- what exactly about "the current nature of the site" leads to there being "no reason for the project to have a presence there" ? Can you articulate the specifics, for the record, in the PR?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- pmj
>> 
>> Do you really need more details about why X/Twitter is a problem per se? This subject has already been covered in several threads: its owner is a fascist that promotes and enhances fascism with the help of his networks, he deliberately updated the recommendation algorithm to create a personality-cult for his fame, the AI that's bound to this network is p*do-promoting, most of the people that are still there are either fascism-enthusiasts or compliant with what the platform has become (therefore, okay with the statu quo, which means "collaborating with the in-place system").
>
> Great -- if those are the beliefs of the RFC author, they should go 
> directly in the RFC as supporting language for the reasoning behind the 
> RFC.
>
> Then there's a record of exactly who is voting in agreement with those 
> statements, and who is not.
>
> If there is some worry or concern about adding the reasons, that itself 
> will be quite telling.

I don't think I have been coy about the reasons at all, but I have updated the RFC. I'll consider this a major change, so voting will happen after the 14-day cooling period. (So I will send another message about the intent to call the vote in about a week.)

Cheers.

Jim