On Thursday, 30 April 2026 at 16:58, Roman Pronskiy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 16:24:48 +0000, Jim Winstead wrote:
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/remove-link-to-x-from-php-net
>
> The RFC describes the account as dormant and implies the project has
> chosen not to post on X. Neither is accurate as stated.
>
> The account is silent because one credential holder unilaterally
> stopped posting and has not transferred or shared access despite
> repeated requests. That is a governance failure, not a project
> decision. Removing the link in this context does not reflect a project
> consensus to abandon the platform — it ratifies the outcome of one
> person's unilateral action.
>
> That precedent matters beyond X: it establishes that any credential
> holder for any project asset can force a project-wide outcome by
> simply becoming non-responsive. The link will be removed, the account
> will be marked as no longer official, and the underlying procedural
> failure gets retroactively legitimized as a "decision".
>
> Larry mentioned earlier in this thread that PHP has never had formal
> procedures for defining "official" accounts. The correct response to
> that observation is to establish those procedures, not to treat their
> absence as license for any individual outcome that happened to result.
>
> The link itself represents a project-level commitment that one person
> should not be able to unilaterally undo through inaction. Until the
> credentials question is resolved through a defined process, removing
> the link records the wrong outcome and embeds the wrong precedent.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
This draft RFC is purposefully misleading.
None of the account created on any social media platform to represent the
project were decided by the project.
Thus, the X account is not held "hostage", as its custodianship was transferred
to the current person by the previous person.
Nor is it a unilateral decision, as multiple active core contributor agree with
this decision.
Moreover, I take issues with quite a few other parts of the draft RFC that are
once again misleading or false due to cherry-picking examples.
If this draft RFC is published as such in the future, I will definitely have
words that follow the announcement.
Regards,
Gina P. Banyard
