On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 11:03 AM Kamil Tekiela <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have voted No not because I am against removing the link to x.com > from php.net, but because I am against the RFC. If we lost access to > the account, create a new one or if we have nobody to post these > announcements, remove the link from php.net. There is no need for an > RFC. From what it seems to me, x.com is still online, and some people > are using it, so it should not be about who owns that platform but > rather whether the PHP team has the need and capacity to post anything > there. I think social media exposure is good, but not strictly > necessary. > > Together with the x.com link there are links to fosstodon.org and > linkedin.com. The latest post on X was about PHP 8.3, but the other > sites have more recent activity. So unless someone decides to start > posting on x.com again, the link should be considered dead and removed > from the site, regardless of the outcome of this RFC. In a similar > vein, we don't have links to Facebook or TikTok because, as I assume, > nobody is posting announcements there. Maybe there should be a social > media person who is in charge of an account on all of these social > media sites and will post regularly. But having a link to an account > with no activity is of no use to anyone. > I think everything you said here is pretty reasonable except for one awkward situation created by the RFC: if someone were to go ahead and remove x.com links because "the link should be considered dead and removed from the site, regardless of the outcome of this RFC" wouldn't that be explicitly contradicting a decision made by the PHP RFC process? It sure seems like having done just that would have been better, but now that the RFC has failed can that really be considered a reasonable action? -- Marco Deleu
