Re: [VOTE] Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net
| From: | Tim Düsterhus | Date: | Mon, 18 May 2026 21:07:22 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [VOTE] Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-130952@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi
On 5/18/26 20:07, Jim Winstead wrote:
I just opened voting for the "Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net" RFC. The RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/remove-link-to-x-from-php-net The PR: https://github.com/php/web-php/pull/1879 The discussion thread:https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130610 Voting runs until 2026-06-03 17:00:00 UTC. There is just one vote to cast.Thank you for your RFC. I voted against it, because I believe that the RFC is poorly written and executed. In particular I believe it is asking the wrong question with the "RFC Impact" section also drawing a conclusion that I don't believe follows from the question asked: The presence or absence of a link on php.net does not change whether or not the @official_php account on X is an official presence or not. Given that php.net linked to this account, I consider it to be an established fact that the account is an official account of the PHP project - which the RFC also acknowledges. The question to then decide on is whether or not the account should be abandoned, which is something that entails more than removing the links from php.net (e.g. updating the bio). The removal of the link directly follows from the account status, not the other way around. This is also something that Rowan noted during the discussion https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/130733. As far as I can tell this email did not receive a response from you as the RFC author, in fact the entire subthread starting from Rowan's first email doesn't contain any emails from you. That's the “poorly executed” part I mentioned above: I feel you did not properly engage with (what I believe to be) well-articulated concerns regarding the RFC by either replying with counter-arguments or by making changes to the RFC in response. Best regards Tim Düsterhus PS: I'm also just noting a factual error in the RFC text itself: The newest post was made on 2024-06-04, whereas the RFC claims in the introduction that the account has not posted since 2023.