On 6/15/26 07:39, Alex Rock wrote:
Anything that doesn't need special powers can more efficiently be
organized without the overhead of the initial RFC, as can also be
seen by The PHP Foundation planning to launch 6 “special interest
groups” in the remainder of 2026 without needing to involve the PHP
project:
https://thephp.foundation/blog/2026/06/11/integrating-community-
feedback-into-foundation-strategy-part2/#community-special-interest-
groups
I'm aware of the PHP Foundation special interest groups, and Elizabeth
and I discussed them before I opened the Working Groups RFC for
discussion. We agreed they do not cover the same ground as the Working
Groups RFC. By design, the PHP Foundation SIGs have no operational or
governance authority over the PHP Project. There can be cross-
pollination and collaboration between the initiatives, but the SIGs
are external, community-focused, interest groups, while PHP WGs are
internal, PHP Project-focused, operational groups.
My 2cents in the form of questions (because I might have missed something):
Since the PHPF's role is to support, help and discuss, then shouldn't
PHPF operatives be excluded from voting on RFCs, whatever the involved
WG? It would ensure that the PHP voters (aka "/The community that
includes contributors and core team members/") can take decisions
without the PHPF being able to intervene if there's a disagreement
between the two groups, I guess...?
This RFC does not impose any restrictions or limitations on the PHP
Foundation or its contractors. They're welcome to create and participate
in working groups, and I never want to exclude them from voting on RFCs.
I'm not sure what problem that would solve.
And similarly, shouldn't there be a mandatory consultation from the PHP
community when the PHPF actually operates on something that impacts the
community on non-RFC-mandatory-operations, like marketing,
communication, etc.? I mean, if at some point the PHPF communicates on
the web on something the PHP community would disagree with (concluded
via a vote of whatever sort), shouldn't the PHPF, as a "consultative
agency", have to update their acts and productions to fit to the
community's views? (that would solve parts of the issues with the recent
hot discussions on a certain link to a certain platform on PHP's
website, for example).
This question doesn't seem related to the Working Groups RFC. The PHP
Foundation is transparent about its role, and they are making efforts to
be more transparent. As for the recent discussion about linking to
X/Twitter, that had nothing to do with the foundation at all, so I'm not
sure how you're making this connection.
All these questions are here because PHP has no official governance
other than the (sometimes vaguely) designated "PHP Community", and the
PHPF's role, from what I understand, is mostly to *help the community to
decide and act* on PHP-related tasks, but *not directly decide nor act*.
I might be off of some details, so feel free to correct me if I miss
something, if I'm mistaking, or if I misunderstand certain roles or
notions.
The Working Groups RFC is in no shape, way, or form an attempt to
control how the PHP Foundation operates within the PHP community. I have
zero problems with how they operate as an entity, and I trust their
leadership.
The WGs RFC exists to provide some (albeit loose) governance structure
to the PHP Project without entirely up-ending the status quo.
Cheers,
Ben
