Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » [VOTE] Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net »

[VOTE] Remove the links to X.com from PHP.net

php.internals

Jim Winstead

106 days ago
Hi, 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. Thanks. Jim

Tim Düsterhus

105 days ago
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.

Derick Rethans

105 days ago
On Mon, 18 May 2026, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> 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.
I honestly don't even understand why this is even a contentious point. We haven't posted anything for years on that platform. Hence, it makes no sense to link to it, as it's not of any benefit. If that changes, it's a one liner to put the link back. I therefore obviously voted in favour of this RFC. cheers, Derick

Matthew Brown

105 days ago
On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 14:10, Jim Winstead <jimw@trainedmonkey.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > 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. > > Thanks. > > Jim >
Two data points: Python Software Foundation is still on X: - 2x more followers than in 2021 - 5x fewer interactions on the average post than in 2021 Rust stopped posting to X a year ago and removed links from its website - People still talk about Rust - Maybe a bit too much

Roman Pronskiy

105 days ago
On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 4:34 AM Matthew Brown <matthewmatthew@gmail.com> wrote:
> Two data points: > > Python Software Foundation is still on X: > - 2x more followers than in 2021 > - 5x fewer interactions on the average post than in 2021 > > Rust stopped posting to X a year ago and removed links from its website > - People still talk about Rust
And they argue against the RFC, not for it. PSF still on X with 2x more followers -- that's exactly the case for staying. X-wide engagement has changed: different algorithm, different audience, different content. That's not "the platform is worse", that's "the platform is different". Lower engagement per post doesn't mean lower value if followers and reach are still there.
> Rust stopped posting to X a year ago and removed links from its website
Rust has momentum that has nothing to do with social media strategy. PHP doesn't have that luxury. We're trying to repair perception, not manage hype. And these aren't isolated cases. TypeScript, Go, the Apache Foundation, the Linux Foundation, and many others actively communicate on X. The pattern across language and OSS communities is presence, not retreat. Another data point: we have actual analytics on what platforms drive engagement to php.net. For April 2026: | Social Network | Visits | Share | |----------------|-------:|-------:| | YouTube | 5,373 | 33.66% | | Reddit | 2,915 | 18.26% | | X/Twitter | 2,102 | 13.17% | | StackOverflow | 2,068 | 12.96% | | Facebook | 2,048 | 12.83% | | LinkedIn | 675 | 4.23% | | Telegram | 205 | 1.28% | | Hacker News | 166 | 1.04% | | Vkontakte | 154 | 0.96% | | Sourceforge | 98 | 0.61% | | Instagram | 58 | 0.36% | | Mastodon | 37 | 0.23% | | Workplace | 16 | 0.10% | | V2EX | 15 | 0.09% | | Bluesky | 14 | 0.09% | | Threads | 12 | 0.08% | Among text-based platforms suitable for project communications, X drives more traffic than LinkedIn and Mastodon combined. An active account would expand reach. That's the kind of analysis the policy RFC encourages producing going forward: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/social-media-policy -Roman

MrMeshok

105 days ago
On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 3:28 PM Roman Pronskiy <roman@pronskiy.com> wrote:
> And they argue against the RFC, not for it. > > PSF still on X with 2x more followers -- that's exactly the case for > staying. X-wide engagement has changed: different algorithm, different > audience, different content. That's not "the platform is worse", > that's "the platform is different". Lower engagement per post doesn't > mean lower value if followers and reach are still there.
This reads very LLM generated, so it's hard to take this seriously.
> And these aren't isolated cases. TypeScript, Go, the Apache > Foundation, the Linux Foundation, and many others actively communicate > on X. The pattern across language and OSS communities is presence, not > retreat.
As someone in the Linux ecosystem I can list big community run projects that did leave X. Like Debian, KDE, GNOME. I think PHP as a community run project should follow these steps, not corporate run projects or projects heavily backed by corporations.
-- Cheers Ilya

Roman Pronskiy

105 days ago
On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 1:12 PM Ilya Orlov <ilyaorlov124@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 3:28 PM Roman Pronskiy <roman@pronskiy.com> wrote: > > And they argue against the RFC, not for it. > > > > PSF still on X with 2x more followers -- that's exactly the case for > > staying. X-wide engagement has changed: different algorithm, different > > audience, different content. That's not "the platform is worse", > > that's "the platform is different". Lower engagement per post doesn't > > mean lower value if followers and reach are still there. > > This reads very LLM generated, so it's hard to take this seriously. > > > And these aren't isolated cases. TypeScript, Go, the Apache > > Foundation, the Linux Foundation, and many others actively communicate > > on X. The pattern across language and OSS communities is presence, not > > retreat. > > As someone in the Linux ecosystem I can list big community run projects > that did leave X. Like Debian, KDE, GNOME. > I think PHP as a community run project should follow these steps, > not corporate run projects or projects heavily backed by corporations.
I use AI for polishing my arguments obviously. The source of the strings doesn't change whether the data points are accurate. Fair point about GNOME and Debian. But I don't see why PHP should follow. "Community vs corporate" would matter if maintaining presence costed us something. Automated posting via GitHub actions costs effectively nothing. GNOME and Debian don't have an unfavorable "you are dead" narrative to push back against. We do. Exactly the trade-off the policy RFC makes explicit. The current vote skips it.

Ilia Alshanetsky

105 days ago
On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 7:15 AM Ilya Orlov <ilyaorlov124@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And these aren't isolated cases. TypeScript, Go, the Apache > > Foundation, the Linux Foundation, and many others actively communicate > > on X. The pattern across language and OSS communities is presence, not > > retreat. > > As someone in the Linux ecosystem I can list big community run projects > that did leave X. Like Debian, KDE, GNOME. > I think PHP as a community run project should follow these steps, > not corporate run projects or projects heavily backed by corporations. >
Just to be clear, Linux Foundation is almost entirely backed by corporations; a long list of them appears right on the homepage. I think Roman correctly stated that PHP currently lacks the same news appeal as more visible languages like Rust & Python. Therefore, neglecting a viable way to communicate with the user base seems counter-intuitive to say the least.
-- Ilia Alshanetsky Technologist, CTO, Entrepreneur E: ilia@ilia.ws T: @iliaa B: http://ilia.ws

MrMeshok

105 days ago
On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 4:55 PM Ilia <ilia@ilia.ws> wrote:
> Just to be clear, Linux Foundation is almost entirely backed by corporations; a long list of them appears right on the homepage.
Yes, I consider Linux Foundation to be the "projects heavily backed by corporations", not much community left there.
> I think Roman correctly stated that PHP currently lacks the same news appeal as more visible languages like Rust & Python. > Therefore, neglecting a viable way to communicate with the user base seems counter-intuitive to say the least.
With this I disagree, sometimes it's better to do the right thing rather than the optimal one
-- Cheers Ilya

Ilia Alshanetsky

105 days ago
On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 8:03 AM Ilya Orlov <ilyaorlov124@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think Roman correctly stated that PHP currently lacks the same news > appeal as more visible languages like Rust & Python. > > Therefore, neglecting a viable way to communicate with the user base > seems counter-intuitive to say the least. > > With this I disagree, sometimes it's better to do the right thing > rather than the optimal one >
Fair argument, "right thing" is a matter of perspective and opinion of course. What I'd encourage you to consider is "right thing" for the project trying to maintain relevance & hopefully grow, vs "right thing" of a social statement that may or may not represent the opinions of all people involved in said project.
-- Ilia Alshanetsky Technologist, CTO, Entrepreneur E: ilia@ilia.ws T: @iliaa B: http://ilia.ws

Matthew Brown

105 days ago
> On May 19, 2026, at 6:25 am, Roman Pronskiy <roman@pronskiy.com> wrote: > > Another data point: we have actual analytics on what platforms drive > engagement to php.net. For April 2026: > > | Social Network | Visits | Share | > |----------------|-------:|-------:| > | YouTube | 5,373 | 33.66% | > | Reddit | 2,915 | 18.26% | > | X/Twitter | 2,102 | 13.17% | > | StackOverflow | 2,068 | 12.96% | > | Facebook | 2,048 | 12.83% | > | LinkedIn | 675 | 4.23% | > | Telegram | 205 | 1.28% | > | Hacker News | 166 | 1.04% | > | Vkontakte | 154 | 0.96% | > | Sourceforge | 98 | 0.61% | > | Instagram | 58 | 0.36% | > | Mastodon | 37 | 0.23% | > | Workplace | 16 | 0.10% | > | V2EX | 15 | 0.09% | > | Bluesky | 14 | 0.09% | > | Threads | 12 | 0.08% | > > Among text-based platforms suitable for project communications, X > drives more traffic than LinkedIn and Mastodon combined. An active > account would expand reach. > > That's the kind of analysis the policy RFC encourages producing going > forward: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/social-media-policy > > -Roman
Thanks for the stats! An average of 70 visits a day from X doesn’t seem like a ton of engagement though? I’m reasonably sure that figures from 2021 would be much much larger. I believe that the era of town-square text social networks is over. There is no longer a single place where I can follow friends, colleagues, experts and funny people all in one place. Some of the exodus was a reaction to the Twitter acquisition, but a lot of it was just a general exhaustion from the dynamics that emerge from such systems. X still has influence in Silicon Valley due to the large number of tech execs, AI companies and researchers, who continue to post there — but I don’t think there’s much overlap in audience. Matt

Jakob Givoni

103 days ago
Thank you Jim for the best written no-brainer RFC for years! On Tue, 19 May 2026, 15:55 Matthew Brown, <matthewmatthew@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Weinand

105 days ago
Hey Jim, Am 18.05.2026 um 20:07 schrieb Jim Winstead <jimw@trainedmonkey.com>: Hi, 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. Thanks. Jim I would support a RFC to simply remove it conditionally based on the activity there. (And automatically re-add upon re-activation.) That would be a no-brainer to me. The secondary motivation (a very political one) is nothing I want the PHP project be associated with. A RFC which seems to try to permanently remove the PHP presence on these grounds too, mainly due to this reason gets a no from me. Like Roman says, participation on social networks should be about actual and effective reach, not perception. I'm looking forward to Romans RFC which aims to force re-activation of the @official_php handle on X. Bob

Hans Zaunere

102 days ago
Is this serious? --- Hans Z On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 1:09 AM Jim Winstead <jimw@trainedmonkey.com> wrote:

Jim Winstead

89 days ago
On Mon, May 18, 2026, at 11:07 AM, Jim Winstead wrote:
> Hi, > > 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. > > Thanks. > > Jim
Hi, The vote failed to achieve a 2/3 majority of "Yes" votes, so the link to defunct account on the website owned by the transphobic white supremacist will remain on the homepage of PHP.net. Thanks to everyone who voted. Jim

Kamil Tekiela

89 days ago
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 at 05:55, Jim Winstead <jimw@trainedmonkey.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2026, at 11:07 AM, Jim Winstead wrote: > > Hi, > > 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. > > Thanks. > > Jim > > > Hi, > > The vote failed to achieve a 2/3 majority of "Yes" votes, so the link to defunct account on the website owned by the transphobic white supremacist will remain on the homepage of PHP.net. > > Thanks to everyone who voted. > > Jim >
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.

Deleu

89 days ago
On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 11:03 AM Kamil Tekiela <tekiela246@gmail.com> 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

Michael Babker

89 days ago
> On Thursday, Jun 04, 2026 at 10:25 AM, Deleu <deleugyn@gmail.com (mailto:deleugyn@gmail.com)> wrote: > > 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?
I would argue it is still a reasonable action. The PR in question should have been as mundane as any SEO-related dead link cleanup action. Fact is, the account is dormant (whether that’s by neglect or sabotage doesn’t really matter after 2 years) and a dead link to a dormant account is prominently displayed on the website. People chose the PR in question and this RFC to push their viewpoints regarding whether the PHP project should even have that account. And I dare say the voting on this RFC was swayed by that bias, especially given the language of the RFC itself. The reality is the presence of the link on the PHP website and the presence of the PHP project on (any) social media platform is two separate discussions and should have been approached as such. Instead, we got the mess that has played out over the last few weeks.