Morning Internals, To start, I find it ironic that the people claiming that having everything self host is better for accessibility when the exact day most of this discussion occurred I'd wager 99% of the mailing list subscribers weren't able to follow the discussion as there was an issue with PHP's SMTP/NNTP whereas I could follow, and get notified, on everything going on GitHub.
Tying this to Joe's comment, we really are bad at infra, because it is not our "job" to handle this infra, our "job" as a project is to maintain/develop/improve PHP, and having this much infrastructure, which the project lacks the manpower to maintain, is taking away resources from our core objectives. I am NOT saying that some of the concerns are invalid, they truly are something to keep in mind when making choices for the project, but they should not dictate them IMHO. If we need to have something in house which allow us to implement the proposed workflow, I suppose we could always create a self-hosted GitLab instance (external users would use OmniAuth to participate in discussions). However the question is who will and is willing to maintain this piece of infrastructure that gets monthly updates? For the actual proposal laid out by Nikita, I fully agree, the ML is good for meta discussion around the RFC but not to go into the nitty gritty details of a particular RFC and how it can be improved. Best regards George P. Banyard PS: I would also like to address the seemingly misrepresentation these corporations get as that they are willingly banning countries/apps, which is not the case as they are obliged to by their local country (for GitHub this would be the embargo on certain countries like Iran). PPS: Also for the love of god can we stop making the assumption that if we move part of our infra to some external entity that we wouldn't be able to claim it back/move it once again? In the super hypothetical case that an entity we use decides to go "nazi" (And how on Earth is this an actual concern?!)
