Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130763
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <093f97b0805b43ae640d80b9e06eb203@bastelstu.be>
 <269a95c46c5b81ebe160799b6b15dc2c@bastelstu.be> <20260503144011.42BF81A00BD@lists.php.net>
 <20260503152920.6C39D1A00BD@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <20260503152920.6C39D1A00BD@lists.php.net>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2026 10:22:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CABj1BaZv4E2Usr_i3EtbEixp5C_37MKbKk7Jwjwxdgxq5yFqMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Release Manager Selection
To: Ben Ramsey <ramsey@php.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000e68850650ff826b"
From: joe@joeferguson.me (Joe Ferguson)

--0000000000000e68850650ff826b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree with Ben, I would prefer "Veteran Release Manager" / "Co-release
Manager" over "hands on" / "hands off". The "hands off" sounds negative to
me.

On Sun, May 3, 2026 at 10:30=E2=80=AFAM Ben Ramsey <ramsey@php.net> wrote:

> On 5/3/26 09:40, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> > On 5/3/26 08:11, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Am 2026-03-27 19:15, schrieb Tim D=C3=BCsterhus:
> >>> please find the following RFC that is intended to clarify the
> >>> =E2=80=9CRelease Manager Selection=E2=80=9D policy for future PHP ver=
sions:
> >>>
> >>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release_manager_selection_policy
> >>
> >> I've made some changes to the PR to streamline the language a little
> >> more and use consistent terminology to refer to various =E2=80=9Crelat=
ive=E2=80=9D PHP
> >> versions (e.g. =E2=80=9Cupcoming PHP version=E2=80=9D for the PHP vers=
ion that we're
> >> going to elect RMs for).
> >>
> >> Please check the commits for more details.
> >>
> >> I consider this a major change. Given how quiet this discussion was, I
> >> plan to vote on the RFC once the cooldown period expires. I'll send an
> >> official intent to vote when this date comes closer.
> >>
> >> Best regards
> >> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus
> >
> >
> > I still dislike the distinction of "hands-on" and "hands-off" as
> > descriptors for these roles and disagree with their use in defining
> > these roles. I said as much in my earlier message, and I'll be voting
> > "no" for the changes to the policy as it currently stands.
> >
> > I think I'm in agreement with the rest of the proposal. If we can come
> > up with better terminology around the roles and make the roles less
> > about their level of involvement, then I'll probably change my vote to =
a
> > "yes."
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ben
> >
>
>
> Following up on my earlier messages, I've been thinking more about the
> terminology and have come up with a concrete suggestion.
>
>  From my perspective, the distinction between the two roles is
> fundamentally about experience, not involvement. I don't want to define
> the roles around involvement. The policy itself already uses the word
> "veteran" to describe the qualification for the advisory role, so I'd
> suggest elevating that to the name of the role itself: "Veteran Release
> Manager" for the advisor with prior experience, and "Co-release Manager"
> for the other two. This reuses terminology already present in the policy
> text and defines the roles by what qualifies someone for them rather
> than what they're expected to do or not do. It also leaves room for the
> RMs themselves to organize their work as they see fit.
>
> With these changes I'd be comfortable changing my vote to "yes."
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
>


--=20
- Joe Ferguson
JoeFerguson.me

--0000000000000e68850650ff826b
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I agree with Ben, I would prefer &quot;Veteran Release Man=
ager&quot; / &quot;Co-release Manager&quot; over &quot;hands on&quot; / &qu=
ot;hands off&quot;. The &quot;hands off&quot; sounds negative to me.=C2=A0<=
/div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, May 3, 2026 at 10:30=E2=80=AFAM Ben Ramsey &lt=
;<a href=3D"mailto:ramsey@php.net">ramsey@php.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l=
eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 5/3/26 09:40, Ben Ramse=
y wrote:<br>
&gt; On 5/3/26 08:11, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; Hi<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Am 2026-03-27 19:15, schrieb Tim D=C3=BCsterhus:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; please find the following RFC that is intended to clarify the =
<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; =E2=80=9CRelease Manager Selection=E2=80=9D policy for future =
PHP versions:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release_manager_selection_=
policy" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/relea=
se_manager_selection_policy</a><br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; I&#39;ve made some changes to the PR to streamline the language a =
little <br>
&gt;&gt; more and use consistent terminology to refer to various =E2=80=9Cr=
elative=E2=80=9D PHP <br>
&gt;&gt; versions (e.g. =E2=80=9Cupcoming PHP version=E2=80=9D for the PHP =
version that we&#39;re <br>
&gt;&gt; going to elect RMs for).<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Please check the commits for more details.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; I consider this a major change. Given how quiet this discussion wa=
s, I <br>
&gt;&gt; plan to vote on the RFC once the cooldown period expires. I&#39;ll=
 send an <br>
&gt;&gt; official intent to vote when this date comes closer.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Best regards<br>
&gt;&gt; Tim D=C3=BCsterhus<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; I still dislike the distinction of &quot;hands-on&quot; and &quot;hand=
s-off&quot; as <br>
&gt; descriptors for these roles and disagree with their use in defining <b=
r>
&gt; these roles. I said as much in my earlier message, and I&#39;ll be vot=
ing <br>
&gt; &quot;no&quot; for the changes to the policy as it currently stands.<b=
r>
&gt; <br>
&gt; I think I&#39;m in agreement with the rest of the proposal. If we can =
come <br>
&gt; up with better terminology around the roles and make the roles less <b=
r>
&gt; about their level of involvement, then I&#39;ll probably change my vot=
e to a <br>
&gt; &quot;yes.&quot;<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Cheers,<br>
&gt; Ben<br>
&gt; <br>
<br>
<br>
Following up on my earlier messages, I&#39;ve been thinking more about the =
<br>
terminology and have come up with a concrete suggestion.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0From my perspective, the distinction between the two roles is <br>
fundamentally about experience, not involvement. I don&#39;t want to define=
 <br>
the roles around involvement. The policy itself already uses the word <br>
&quot;veteran&quot; to describe the qualification for the advisory role, so=
 I&#39;d <br>
suggest elevating that to the name of the role itself: &quot;Veteran Releas=
e <br>
Manager&quot; for the advisor with prior experience, and &quot;Co-release M=
anager&quot; <br>
for the other two. This reuses terminology already present in the policy <b=
r>
text and defines the roles by what qualifies someone for them rather <br>
than what they&#39;re expected to do or not do. It also leaves room for the=
 <br>
RMs themselves to organize their work as they see fit.<br>
<br>
With these changes I&#39;d be comfortable changing my vote to &quot;yes.&qu=
ot;<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Ben<br>
</blockquote></div><div><br clear=3D"all"></div><br><span class=3D"gmail_si=
gnature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr">- Joe Ferguson<b=
r>JoeFerguson.me</div></div></div></div></div></div>

--0000000000000e68850650ff826b--