On Mon, Jun 15, 2026, at 7:39 AM, Alex Rock wrote: >> Anything that doesn't need special powers can more efficiently be organized >> without the overhead of the initial RFC, as can also be seen by The PHP >> Foundation planning to launch 6 “special interest groups” in the remainder >> of 2026 without needing to involve the PHP project: >>> >>> https://thephp.foundation/blog/2026/06/11/integrating-community- >>> feedback-into-foundation-strategy-part2/#community-special-interest-groups >> >> >> I'm aware of the PHP Foundation special interest groups, and Elizabeth and I >> discussed them before I opened the Working Groups RFC for discussion. We >> agreed they do not cover the same ground as the Working Groups RFC. By >> design, the PHP Foundation SIGs have no operational or governance authority >> over the PHP Project. There can be cross-pollination and collaboration >> between the initiatives, but the SIGs are external, community-focused, >> interest groups, while PHP WGs are internal, PHP Project-focused, >> operational groups. > > > My 2cents in the form of questions (because I might have missed something): > > Since the PHPF's role is to support, help and discuss, then shouldn't > PHPF operatives be excluded from voting on RFCs, whatever the involved > WG? It would ensure that the PHP voters (aka "*The community that > includes contributors and core team members*") can take decisions > without the PHPF being able to intervene if there's a disagreement > between the two groups, I guess...?
"PHPF operatives" sounds very negative. Bear in mind, the Foundation currently employs a majority of the people who really understand the PHP engine and how to maintain it. Excluding them from voting would be.. project suicide. The Foundation has no vote. The people who do half the work for PHP, who happen to work for the Foundation, have votes. As they should. > And similarly, shouldn't there be a mandatory consultation from the PHP > community when the PHPF actually operates on something that impacts the > community on non-RFC-mandatory-operations, like marketing, > communication, etc.? I mean, if at some point the PHPF communicates on > the web on something the PHP community would disagree with (concluded > via a vote of whatever sort), shouldn't the PHPF, as a "consultative > agency", have to update their acts and productions to fit to the > community's views? (that would solve parts of the issues with the > recent hot discussions on a certain link to a certain platform on PHP's > website, for example). > > All these questions are here because PHP has no official governance > other than the (sometimes vaguely) designated "PHP Community", and the > PHPF's role, from what I understand, is mostly to *help the community > to decide and act* on PHP-related tasks, but *not directly decide nor > act*. > > I might be off of some details, so feel free to correct me if I miss > something, if I'm mistaking, or if I misunderstand certain roles or > notions. >From the Foundation's home page: ``` The PHP Foundation is a collective of people and organizations relying on the PHP language. Its mission is to ensure the long-term prosperity of the PHP language. The PHP Foundation focuses on providing financial support and guidance to PHP language developers to support its goals of improving the language for its users, providing high-quality maintenance, and improving the PHP language project to retain current contributors and to integrate new contributors. The PHP Foundation aims to promote the public image of the PHP language in the interest of retaining existing and gaining new users and contributors. Read our announcement for more details. ``` That's what the Foundation does and is for. It really seems like you're inventing problems that do not exist, and have no bearing on the project itself creating working groups. That those WGs may overlap with the Foundation, both in goal and personnel, is a good thing in my mind. --Larry Garfield
