Re: [RFC] Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net

> Perhaps the RFC would be better served with (a) greater context (including efforts at outreach > & recovery, and (b) separate voting options for removing the link (a no-brainer IMHO), and > abandoning the platform entirely? I think this is the right approach; but as importantly as two RFCs. 1. The current RFC/vote. At present, the current account is inactive and so linking to it from any of the PHP main pages is of limited benefit at the moment. For this RFC, the considerations on if it should be in use or not can be ignored - the core question is should the website link to a _currently_ inactive page? 2. If anyone thinks it is worth having an official PHP X/Twitter account (the current one or a new one), then they can raise a further PHP (regardless if the first one passes / doesn't pass / is abandoned) where there can be discussion and a vote on that as a matter. If the first RFC has proceeded to a vote and has passed, if the second RFC passed it would be trivial to add the link back in (to the relevant account as per that RFC). On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 11:03 AM Yitzchok Willroth <coderabbi@gmail..com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2026, 3:05 PM Jorg Sowa <jorg.sowa@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > All of PHP's "official" social media accounts are technically "run >> > by some dude we're on good terms with." >> >> So I understand that the PHP Group granted the right to represent PHP on specific social >> media platforms, and that the person holding this responsibility, instead of passing it on to a >> successor, unilaterally decided to stop contributing. This is not a proper approach, and the account >> should be returned to the appropriate entity regardless of the individual’s personal views. >> Framing the account as "abandoned" shifts the narrative and misleads the discussion into >> treating this as an acceptable outcome. >> >> So, IMO, I think the access was lost, and this is a original problem. >> >> > I don't even know what this means. > > > Perhaps the RFC would be better served with (a) greater context (including efforts at outreach > & recovery, and (b) separate voting options for removing the link (a no-brainer IMHO), and > abandoning the platform entirely?