On 21 January 2026 17:13:34 GMT, Edmond Dantes <[email protected]> wrote: >> The idea of a "working group" was discussed, but no process was established, >> no "charter", no milestones. Edmond has been doing an amazing amount of work, >> and I will repeat that I have huge respect for that effort. But if you drop >> an encyclopedia on someone's desk and say "discuss", is it really surprising >> that people don't know what to say? > >As for the working group, it was created.
Unless I missed something, there was never a discussion of what a Working Group should look like, what its aims were, how it would report back to the mailing list, etc. If the WG didn't have the backing of this list, it doesn't solve the problem of how this list can understand and approve the proposal. >In an ideal world, I would like to be confident that everyone who will >vote on this RFC clearly understands the foundation of what PHP is >becoming: >* a language oriented toward single-threaded concurrent execution, >* with actors for multi-processor interaction. > >That’s how I see the end goal. Defining that end goal, in my mind, would be the first job of a Working Group. Then presenting it, and making sure the wider community agrees with that goal. Right now, a "No" vote on the RFC could mean anything from "I disagree with the vision completely" to "I don't like the name of the 5th function on page 18". And so everyone ends up frustrated, because we never worked out where to start, or where we're trying to get to. Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]
