Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130739
Feedback-ID: ia2404087:Fastmail
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 01 May 2026 12:10:33 -0700
To: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <5b4527cb-0565-493a-b3fc-dbb981296572@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALrFCSwr=aK649H2Om2=Vcrfz642JsiNBfCgDVY8U1Z27KDcNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALrFCSwr=aK649H2Om2=Vcrfz642JsiNBfCgDVY8U1Z27KDcNg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: jimw@trainedmonkey.com ("Jim Winstead")

On Thu, Apr 30, 2026, at 8:55 AM, Roman Pronskiy wrote:
> I've drafted an alternative RFC that addresses this directly:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/social-media-policy
> https://github.com/pronskiy/php-rfc-social-media-policy/pull/1/changes
>
> It establishes Infrastructure Team custody of credentials (with
> succession procedures, so this situation does not recur) and
> Foundation content authority for official channels. Decisions about
> which platforms PHP maintains become content decisions within a
> documented process =E2=80=94 including the X question, future platform=
s, and
> any reversal of those decisions later.

This doesn't do anything to establish the membership and accountability =
of either this "Infrastructure Team", and the "temporary administration"=
 of The PHP Foundation itself has continued to fail to deliver on its ne=
arly five-year-old promise to establish governance procedures of its own=
, and it appears to be content to continue operating that way indefinite=
ly, so I don't believe it is in the interest of the PHP project to wait =
for that.

> I'd ask that this RFC be deferred until the governance framework is in
> place. Removing a link is trivial to do afterwards, should that be the
> decision.

Respectfully, no. The governance framework we have now is the RFC proces=
s, and even if you want to characterize this as ratifying a decision tha=
t was made unilaterally by someone, doing that by RFC is the process we =
have.

Cheers.

Jim