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

On Thursday, 30 April 2026 at 16:58, Roman Pronskiy <roman@pronskiy.com> 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