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 AM Ben Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/3/26 09:40, Ben Ramsey wrote: > > On 5/3/26 08:11, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> Am 2026-03-27 19:15, schrieb Tim Düsterhus: > >>> please find the following RFC that is intended to clarify the > >>> “Release Manager Selection” policy for future PHP versions: > >>> > >>> 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 “relative” PHP > >> versions (e.g. “upcoming PHP version” for the PHP version 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 Düsterhus > > > > > > 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 > -- - Joe Ferguson JoeFerguson.me
