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

On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 2:07 PM Gina P. Banyard <internals@gpb.moe> wrote: > 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. The framing in the RFC reflects how the situation looks from outside the credential circle. If there are facts that change that picture, particularly about custodianship history, the chain of agreement around stopping posting, or anything else you see as cherry-picked, I'd genuinely like to know what they are. The RFC will be revised and I'd prefer it to be accurate. On unilateral action vs. multiple contributors agreeing. There's a distinction between a decision made by one person (which then others agree with) and a decision made transparently. If posting stopped because one custodian decided to stop, and others have since expressed support for that outcome (while many expressed disagreement btw), that's the first case. The governance gap isn't whether the resulting state is popular – it's that the decision-making process wasn't visible or accountable to the project. Per Jakub's point in the parallel thread, I'm going to restructure this as a policy-repo-first proposal rather than a standalone RFC. That changes the appropriate scope significantly. The policy framework and any specific platform decisions become separate documents. -Roman