The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and controlled path for large technical decisions for the REF.
Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.
Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put through a bit of a design process to ensure that we building what the community needs.
- Table of Contents
- What the process is
- The RFC life-cycle
- Reviewing RFCs
- Help this is all too informal!
- License
- [Contributions]
In short, to get a major feature added to the REF, one must first get the RFC merged into the RFC repository as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is "active" and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into the REF.
- Fork the RFC repo [RFC repository]
- Copy
0000-template.mdtotext/0000-my-feature.md(where "my-feature" is descriptive). Don't assign an RFC number yet; This is going to be the PR number and we'll rename the file accordingly if the RFC is accepted. - Fill in the RFC.
- Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design feedback from the larger community, and the author should be prepared to revise it in response.
- Now that your RFC has an open pull request, use the issue number of the PR
to rename the file: update your
0000-prefix to that number. Also update the "RFC PR" link at the top of the file. - Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are much more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments. Feel free to reach out to the RFC assignee in particular to get help identifying stakeholders and obstacles.
- At some point,
Once an RFC becomes "active" then authors may implement it and submit the feature as a pull request to the REF repository. Being "active" is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be merged; it does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed to the feature and are amenable to merging it.
Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is "active" implies nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor does it imply anything about whether a developer has been assigned the task of implementing the feature. While it is not necessary that the author of the RFC also write the implementation, it is by far the most effective way to see an RFC through to completion: authors should not expect that other project developers will take on responsibility for implementing their accepted feature.
Modifications to "active" RFCs can be done in follow-up pull requests. We strive to write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of the feature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every merged RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at the time of the next major release.
In general, once accepted, RFCs should not be substantially changed. Only very minor changes should be submitted as amendments. More substantial changes should be new RFCs, with a note added to the original RFC.
While the RFC pull request is up, the development-team may schedule meetings with the author and/or relevant stakeholders to discuss the issues in greater detail, and in some cases the topic may be discussed at a development-team meeting. In either case a summary from the meeting will be posted back to the RFC pull request.
A development-team makes final decisions about RFCs after the benefits and drawbacks are well understood. These decisions can be made at any time, but the development-team will regularly issue decisions. When a decision is made, the RFC pull request will either be merged or closed. In either case, if the reasoning is not clear from the discussion in thread, the development-team will add a comment describing the rationale for the decision.
Some accepted RFCs represent vital features that need to be implemented right away. Other accepted RFCs can represent features that can wait until some arbitrary developer feels like doing the work. Every accepted RFC has an associated issue tracking its implementation in the REF repository; thus that associated issue can be assigned a priority via the triage process that the team uses for all issues in the REF repository.
The author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC author (like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation for review after the RFC has been accepted.
If you are interested in working on the implementation for an "active" RFC, but cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask (e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue).
The process is intended to be as lightweight as reasonable for the present circumstances. As usual, we are trying to let the process be driven by consensus and community norms, not impose more structure than necessary.
This repository is currently in the process of being licensed under either of:
- Apache License, Version 2.0, (LICENSE or https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
This RFC process is inspired by the [Rust RFC process] albeit somewhat trimmed down.