# [VOTE] Release Manager Selection - Thread: https://externals.io/message/130937 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130937 - Started by tim@bastelstu.be on 2026-05-18T11:47:40+00:00 - Messages: 11 - RFC: Release Manager Selection (Accepted) — https://externals.io/rfc/release_manager_selection_policy.md - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · RFCs at https://externals.io/rfc.md · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #130937 — tim@bastelstu.be — 2026-05-18T11:47:40+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130937#130937 Hi I just opened voting for the “Release Manager Selection” policy RFC. The RFC text is in: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release_manager_selection_policy The PR with the actual policy is: https://github.com/php/policies/pull/28 The discussion thread is: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130470 Voting runs until 2026-06-01 12:00:00 UTC. There is a single primary vote to cast. Best regards Tim Düsterhus --- ## #131012 — Derick Rethans — 2026-05-25T16:50:47+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130937#131012 · In reply to: #130937 > I just opened voting for the “Release Manager Selection” policy RFC. > > The RFC text is in: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release_manager_selection_policy The PR with > the actual policy is: https://github.com/php/policies/pull/28 The > discussion thread is: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130470 > > Voting runs until 2026-06-01 12:00:00 UTC. There is a single primary > vote to cast. I voted no on this. Not because of the policies themselves, but because "hands-off" and "hands-on" are phrases from a school yard — and suggestions to come up with better names were ignored. cheers, Derick -- https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io Author of Xdebug. Like it? Consider supporting me: https://xdebug.org/support mastodon: @derickr@phpc.social @xdebug@phpc.social --- ## #131013 — Daniel Scherzer — 2026-05-25T19:16:44+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130937#131013 · In reply to: #131012 > > > > […] > > I voted no on this. Not because of the policies themselves, but because > "hands-off" and "hands-on" are phrases from a school yard — and > suggestions to come up with better names were ignored. > > cheers, > Derick > > ^^^This - I voted no for the same reason. If the RFC passes, I plan to write up a follow-up to change the terms. After discussion with some other release managers and developers at PHPTek, I haven't heard any arguments *against" the terms "Veteran release manager" and "Co-release managers". Those terms would also makes it clear that * the veteran need not be "hands-off", that can be decided by the RM team * the veteran is clearly a veteran (from the name) rather than just someone who doesn't do much ("hands-off") and you have to check the policy to understand why * the veteran is still involved in things, even if they are not making the actual releases -Daniel --- ## #131025 — Matteo Beccati — 2026-05-27T13:14:29+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130937#131025 · In reply to: #131013 Hi, Il 25/05/2026 21:16, Daniel Scherzer wrote: > ^^^This - I voted no for the same reason. If the RFC passes, I plan to > write up a follow-up to change the terms. > > After discussion with some other release managers and developers at > PHPTek, I haven't heard any arguments *against" the terms "Veteran > release manager" and "Co-release managers". Those terms would also makes > it clear that > > * the veteran need not be "hands-off", that can be decided by the RM team > * the veteran is clearly a veteran (from the name) rather than just > someone who doesn't do much ("hands-off") and you have to check the > policy to understand why > * the veteran is still involved in things, even if they are not making > the actual releases I'm guilty of switching my vote twice already. I was, and still am, in favour of the change. At first I took for granted that the feedback about the "hands‑on / hands‑off" terminology had been incorporated. When I realised it hadn’t, I was a bit disappointed and changed my vote. Earlier today Volker reached out and kindly asked why. We had a brief chat, and I ended up deciding that it's not the end of the world if this RFC passes with the current wording. It's still much better than the alternative -- the RFC failing, delaying things further, or worse, stopping progress on the topic altogether. I'd also be very much in favour of a follow‑up RFC to improve the terminology. Cheers -- Matteo Beccati --- ## #131075 — tim@bastelstu.be — 2026-06-01T12:45:52+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130937#131075 · In reply to: #130937 Hi Am 2026-05-18 13:47, schrieb Tim Düsterhus: > I just opened voting for the “Release Manager Selection” policy RFC. > > The RFC text is in: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release_manager_selection_policy > The PR with the actual policy is: > https://github.com/php/policies/pull/28 > The discussion thread is: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130470 > > Voting runs until 2026-06-01 12:00:00 UTC. There is a single primary > vote to cast. The RFC has been accepted with 17 (Yes) to 6 (No) votes and 4 Abstentions (74%). Best regards Tim Düsterhus --- ## #131078 — tim@bastelstu.be — 2026-06-01T13:27:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130937#131078 · In reply to: #131012 Hi Am 2026-05-25 18:50, schrieb Derick Rethans: > I voted no on this. Not because of the policies themselves, but because > "hands-off" and "hands-on" are phrases from a school yard — and > suggestions to come up with better names were ignored. I don't think this is an accurate representation of the discussion. The concerns raised were with regard to the policy, not the naming of the roles. I also disagree with the notion that suggestions were “ignored”. I have replied to every discussion (sub-)thread. Best regards Tim Düsterhus --- ## #131079 — Ben Ramsey — 2026-06-01T13:49:45+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130937#131079 · In reply to: #131078 > Hi > > Am 2026-05-25 18:50, schrieb Derick Rethans: > > […] > > I don't think this is an accurate representation of the discussion. The > concerns raised were with regard to the policy, not the naming of the > roles. I also disagree with the notion that suggestions were “ignored”. > I have replied to every discussion (sub-)thread. > At least 4 messages raised concerns about the naming of the roles: 1. "I'm not sure I like the notion or language of 'hands-off' vs. 'hands-on' release managers." [1] 2. "I disagree with designating whether anyone is 'hands-on' or 'hands-off.'" [1] 3. "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." [2] 4. "If we can come up with better terminology around the roles [...] then I'll probably change my vote to a 'yes.'" [2] 5. "I've been thinking more about the terminology and have come up with a concrete suggestion." [3] 6. "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." [4] Cheers, Ben [1]: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130472 [2]: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130756 [3]: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130757 [4]: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130763 --- ## #131080 — tim@bastelstu.be — 2026-06-01T14:07:27+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130937#131080 · In reply to: #131079 Hi Am 2026-06-01 15:49, schrieb Ben Ramsey: > At least 4 messages raised concerns about the naming of the roles: > > 1. "I'm not sure I like the notion or language of 'hands-off' vs. > 'hands-on' release managers." [1] > > 2. "I disagree with designating whether anyone is 'hands-on' or > 'hands-off.'" [1] > > 3. "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." [2] > > 4. "If we can come up with better terminology around the roles [...] > then I'll probably change my vote to a 'yes.'" [2] > > 5. "I've been thinking more about the terminology and have come up with > a concrete suggestion." [3] > > 6. "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." [4] (1), (2), and (3) were concerns with regard to the policy itself, not the terminology used. For (4) you elided the relevant part during, namely “and make the roles less about their level of involvement”, which is also a concern regarding the policy itself. And similarly the email that contained quote (5) also mentions “I don't want to define the roles around involvement”, which is a concern regarding the policy itself and (6) is in direct agreement of that without adding anything by itself. Best regards Tim Düsterhus --- ## #131081 — Ben Ramsey — 2026-06-01T14:15:17+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130937#131081 · In reply to: #131080 > Hi > > Am 2026-06-01 15:49, schrieb Ben Ramsey: > > […] > > (1), (2), and (3) were concerns with regard to the policy itself, not > the terminology used. For (4) you elided the relevant part during, > namely “and make the roles less about their level of involvement”, which > is also a concern regarding the policy itself. And similarly the email > that contained quote (5) also mentions “I don't want to define the roles > around involvement”, which is a concern regarding the policy itself and > (6) is in direct agreement of that without adding anything by itself. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus Since I wrote three of those messages, I should like to think I know what my own concerns were. The meaning of my statements can be both about the terminology _and_ the policy. These concerns aren't mutually exclusive. I chose my words carefully. I referred to the "language" and used the words "designating," "descriptors," and "terminology," all of which are specific to the naming. As for "eliding the relevant part," for the quotation, I was only focusing on the part that discussed the naming, but it looks like you did not consider that relevant. Cheers, Ben --- ## #131082 — tim@bastelstu.be — 2026-06-01T15:16:05+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130937#131082 · In reply to: #131081 Hi Am 2026-06-01 16:15, schrieb Ben Ramsey: > Since I wrote three of those messages, I should like to think I know > what my own concerns were. The meaning of my statements can be both > about the terminology _and_ the policy. These concerns aren't mutually > exclusive. The requested change to the policy itself (“don't have separate roles”) necessarily implies a change to the terminology, since without separate roles there is no need for terminology describing the roles. I'm not a native speaker of English, but the way the emails were phrased, the two concerns were inseparably linked with each other with the concern about the policy being the “actual” concern (e.g. “notion of” in the first quote, “distinction” in the third quote, “and” from the elided part of the fourth quote). That's why I explained why the policy looks the way it looks, which didn't receive any further reply with clarification that the terms themselves would also be a concern for an otherwise unchanged policy. Best regards Tim Düsterhus --- ## #131083 — Ben Ramsey — 2026-06-01T15:23:12+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/130937#131083 · In reply to: #131082 > Hi > > Am 2026-06-01 16:15, schrieb Ben Ramsey: > > […] > > The requested change to the policy itself (“don't have separate roles”) > necessarily implies a change to the terminology, since without separate > roles there is no need for terminology describing the roles. I'm not a > native speaker of English, but the way the emails were phrased, the two > concerns were inseparably linked with each other with the concern about > the policy being the “actual” concern (e.g. “notion of” in the first > quote, “distinction” in the third quote, “and” from the elided part of > the fourth quote). That's why I explained why the policy looks the way > it looks, which didn't receive any further reply with clarification that > the terms themselves would also be a concern for an otherwise unchanged > policy. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus No worries. I didn't reply with clarification because I assumed your response meant you were not interested in entertaining changes to the terminology. The vote has passed now, so I guess few others shared the same concerns. Cheers, Ben