On Fri, May 1, 2026, at 2:10 PM, Jim Winstead wrote: > 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 — including the X question, future platforms, 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 nearly five-year-old promise to establish governance > procedures of its own, and it appears to be content to continue > operating that way indefinitely, 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 > process, and even if you want to characterize this as ratifying a > decision that was made unilaterally by someone, doing that by RFC is > the process we have. > > Cheers. > > Jim
I fully agree with Jim here. I am 100% in favor of improving our governance processes, which are currently largely non-existent. I will happily support those efforts, but they're so haphazard right now that we need to start at ground 0 first; defining the infra team, how one is added to it, how one is removed from it, etc. That's a not-small task; one I'm happy to assist in, but it's a months long process knowing PHP. Meanwhile, the current process, broken as it is, does have a mechanism to approve "don't link to this thing," and it's called an RFC. We work with the process we have, not the process we wish we had. And the process we have is exactly this thread/RFC, as-is. --Larry Garfield
