Hi,
You friendly ghost from PHP past here to shake his chains to pass another policy RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/remove-link-to-x-from-php-net
Voting will commence two weeks after any discussion dies down.
Thanks.
Jim
On 4/12/26 11:24, Jim Winstead wrote:
Hi,
You friendly ghost from PHP past here to shake his chains to pass another policy RFC:
PHP: rfc:remove-link-to-x-from-php-net
Voting will commence two weeks after any discussion dies down.
Thanks.
Jim
While I agree with removing the link to X, I'd like some clarity/transparency around some of the statements made in the RFC and in comments on the PR:
* "The PHP project no longer has control over its account on X"
* "the PHP project does not have access to the account credentials"
* "we seem to not have access to the account on X"
* "access has been withheld despite repeated requests"
The PHP project doesn't have processes or policies around how we manage things like communications. So, who controls accounts, the kind of messages posted, the brand voice, etc. haven't historically been a concern of the PHP project. I think the framing of these statements needs to be clarified:
* The PHP project doesn't have control over any of its social media accounts and never has
* Since the PHP project doesn't have control over these accounts or procedures governing them, asking for access to an account is similar to requesting that someone give you access to a personal account
A while back, I drafted an RFC[1] that I hoped would give us a framework for managing these things, but after off-list discussions, it seemed like it was going to be a pretty controversial RFC, and I didn't really have the stomach or time for dealing with that. We can keep this discussion narrowly focused to this RFC if we want, but we'll need to come back to this governance question at some point.
Cheers,
Ben
On Sunday, Apr 12, 2026 at 12:26 PM, Jim Winstead <jimw@trainedmonkey.com> wrote:
Hi,
You friendly ghost from PHP past here to shake his chains to pass another policy RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/remove-link-to-x-from-php-net
Voting will commence two weeks after any discussion dies down.
Thanks.
Jim
The fact this has even reached the point of requiring an RFC is a joke. The fact is the account is dead and should not be linked to anymore, and it should be clearly communicated that is the state of the account instead of just being silently abandoned (contradicting the very vocal behavior of those with the keys who made it quite clear what they were doing and why). It shouldn’t be a discussion of politics or people flinging about insults about how people choose to engage with social media to make a decision on whether a link is visible.
Linking to an account the PHP team doesn’t control let alone can’t post to, doesn’t make sense, so I completely agree on that point.
I’d argue that either gaining control of the account (ideal, since it’s followed by >100k people) or creating a new one and using it like any other platform to communicate with folks who use PHP and X (still a huge platform with a massive audience) still holds significant value. I briefly skimmed through the GitHub comments regarding the reasoning. The point I think is worth challenging is that “There is no PHP audience at all on Twitter/X”, I don’t think that stands up to scrutiny, a basic search on X shows many people posting on X about PHP, having conversations etc…
That being said, the sheer number of social media platforms makes it impractical for PHP to maintain a presence on all of them, although posting announcements via automation eliminates that friction. Perhaps the right move is not to focus on removing X, but instead to focus on the main fosstodon.org, and remove all commercial platforms like X or LinkedIn, which judging by the account’s followers (Geo data on Linkedin @ least) implies it is mostly bots anyway.
···
Ilia Alshanetsky
Technologist, CTO, Entrepreneur
E: ilia@ilia.ws
T: @iliaa
B: http://ilia.ws
On Sun, Apr 12, 2026, at 9:58 AM, Ben Ramsey wrote:
A while back, I drafted an RFC[1] that I hoped would give us a framework
for managing these things, but after off-list discussions, it seemed
like it was going to be a pretty controversial RFC, and I didn't really
have the stomach or time for dealing with that. We can keep this
discussion narrowly focused to this RFC if we want, but we'll need to
come back to this governance question at some point.
I would rather keep this discussion narrowly focused on this RFC, but I do want to say that your working groups RFC would have my full support, and I hope that you or someone else finds the time and energy to pick up that ball again and run with it.
Thanks.
Jim
Hi!
You friendly ghost from PHP past here to shake his chains to pass another policy RFC:
I indeed it's not an official PHP account (I have no idea, but I assume it isn't anymore?) then there's no point to linking to it as an official account. Having an official account there (as on other popular platforms) may make sense if somebody is up to doing it, or not, if nobody steps up. I don't think we should be bringing politics into it, or in fact don't think it needs a vote - if it's not actually an official PHP account, then it's a fact, so what's the point of voting on it? It's not a decision that can go either way, if it's true then it's true. And we should also ask whever controls the account (if anybody still does) to remove the "official" language from it - unless, again, somebody steps up to support it.
--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
On Sun, Apr 12, 2026, at 10:17 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
I don't think we should be bringing politics into it,
To be clear: to have, as you propose, an official account on a platform controlled by a transphobic white supremacist would most definitely be bringing politics into it. That is not a neutral choice.
Jim
Please, instead of focusing on American political debates, spend time investigating how to properly manage the assets of the PHP Group. If it’s true that this account was official and was lost, it poses a risk of similar issues in the future.
And regarding the political statements in this group. This is a perfect group, and you are the perfect people to asses it. Technology project is the best place for such statements. Please continue it, because it’s most important part of this discussion.
Kind regards,
Jorg
On Sun, Apr 12, 2026 at 7:28 PM Jim Winstead <jimw@trainedmonkey.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2026, at 10:17 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
I don’t think we should be bringing politics into it,
To be clear: to have, as you propose, an official account on a platform controlled by a transphobic white supremacist would most definitely be bringing politics into it. That is not a neutral choice.
Jim
On Sun, Apr 12, 2026, at 12:54 PM, Jorg Sowa wrote:
Please, instead of focusing on American political debates, spend time
investigating how to properly manage the assets of the PHP Group. If
it’s true that this account was official and was lost, it poses a risk
of similar issues in the future.And regarding the political statements in this group. This is a perfect
group, and you are the perfect people to asses it. Technology project
is the best place for such statements. Please continue it, because it's
most important part of this discussion.Kind regards,
JorgOn Sun, Apr 12, 2026 at 7:28 PM Jim Winstead <jimw@trainedmonkey.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2026, at 10:17 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> I don't think we should be bringing politics into it,To be clear: to have, as you propose, an official account on a platform controlled by a transphobic white supremacist would most definitely be bringing politics into it. That is not a neutral choice.
Jim
Access was not "lost." PHP has never had a formal way to even define "official" accounts on anything. It's always been "trusted person X decided person Y was trustworthy, so when Y volunteered to do something X handed them keys." All of PHP's "official" social media accounts are technically "run by some dude we're on good terms with." If you consider that a sloppy and unreasonable way to run a major OSS project, well, I agree, but that's the project's fault, not that dude's fault.
In this case, that dude has long since stopped posting on X, for the reasons already mentioned. (I support that decision.) Unless we're going to force the issue and set up a new account for PHP to "officially" post on X, removing the existing link is an obvious and mundane decision. Linking to a dead account is kinda pointless.
--Larry Garfield
(Please avoid top-posting in this group.)
On Sun, Apr 12, 2026, at 10:54 AM, Jorg Sowa wrote:
Please, instead of focusing on American political debates, spend time investigating how to properly manage the assets of the PHP Group. If it’s true that this account was official and was lost, it poses a risk of similar issues in the future.
I have clarified in the RFC that the account is dormant, not entirely outside of the control of people associated with the PHP project. I don’t want to get too far into the weeds on project governance on this RFC, but I agree that addressing those issues would be a good idea for someone to pursue.
And regarding the political statements in this group. This is a perfect group, and you are the perfect people to asses it. Technology project is the best place for such statements. Please continue it, because it’s most important part of this discussion.
I don’t even know what this means.
Jim
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.
Sarcasm. I use it when I see middle-aged white men from the Anglo-Saxon world arguing over who has the correct perspective.
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?
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?