Hey Larry, hey all.
On 02.05.26 17:54, Larry Garfield wrote:
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.
Sorry to disagree here.
The current process to add or remove things from the PHP website is not
RFC but Nike-based: Just do it.
And "don't link to this thing on the website because it is outdated and
nothing new is coming" should be a no-brainer. We had other things
removed that were much less outdated.
The question whether we want to have a presence and whether we want to
try to get that specific presence back online is a different question
and yes! I am with you there: That is something for an RFC. Regardles
whether that is Mastodon, Instagram, X, Facebook, LinkedIn or any other
commercial "social media".
And re-adding the link then should then not be much of an issue at all.
Right now though the link is sending people to an outdated profile
implying that PHP is outdated and nothing new came for the last few years...
Cheers
Andreas
--
,,,
(o o)
+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl |
| mailto:[email protected] N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" |
| https://andreas.heigl.org |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| https://hei.gl/appointmentwithandreas |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| GPG-Key: https://hei.gl/keyandreasheiglorg |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
