Initial commit, based on Yarn RFCs repo

I've started by copying the Yarn RFCs repo, with some tweaks to the
README and the RFC template. We'll continue iterating on these.

0000-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
+- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
+- React Issue: (leave this empty)
+
+# Summary
+
+Brief explanation of the feature.
+
+# Basic example
+
+If the proposal involves a new or changed API, include a basic code example.
+Omit this section if it's not applicable.
+
+# Motivation
+
+Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected
+outcome?
+
+Please focus on explaining the motivation so that if this RFC is not accepted,
+the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words,
+enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too
+closely to the solution you have in mind.
+
+# Detailed design
+
+This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody
+familiar with React to understand, and for somebody familiar with the
+implementation to implement. This should get into specifics and corner-cases,
+and include examples of how the feature is used. Any new terminology should be
+defined here.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Why should we *not* do this? Please consider:
+
+- implementation cost, both in term of code size and complexity
+- whether the proposed feature can be implemented in user space
+- the impact on teaching people React
+- integration of this feature with other existing and planned features
+- cost of migrating existing React applications (is it a breaking change?)
+
+There are tradeoffs to choosing any path. Attempt to identify them here.
+
+# Alternatives
+
+What other designs have been considered? What is the impact of not doing this?
+
+# Adoption strategy
+
+If we implement this proposal, how will existing React developers adopt it? Is
+this a breaking change? Can we write a codemod? Should we coordinate with
+other projects or libraries?
+
+# How we teach this
+
+What names and terminology work best for these concepts and why? How is this
+idea best presented? As a continuation of existing React patterns?
+
+Would the acceptance of this proposal mean the React documentation must be
+re-organized or altered? Does it change how React is taught to new developers
+at any level?
+
+How should this feature be taught to existing React developers?
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+Optional, but suggested for first drafts. What parts of the design are still
+TBD?

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+# React RFCs
+
+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 and produce a consensus among the React
+core team.
+
+The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a
+consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project.
+
+[Active RFC List](https://github.com/reactjs/rfcs/pulls)
+
+React is still **actively developing** this process, and it will still change as
+more features are implemented and the community settles on specific approaches
+to feature development.
+
+## When to follow this process
+
+You should consider using this process if you intend to make "substantial"
+changes to React or its documentation. Some examples that would benefit
+from an RFC are:
+
+   - A new feature that creates new API surface area, and would
+     require a feature flag if introduced.
+   - The removal of features that already shipped as part of the release
+     channel.
+   - The introduction of new idiomatic usage or conventions, even if they
+     do not include code changes to React itself.
+
+The RFC process is a great opportunity to get more eyeballs on your proposal
+before it becomes a part of a released version of React. Quite often, even
+proposals that seem "obvious" can be significantly improved once a wider
+group of interested people have a chance to weigh in.
+
+The RFC process can also be helpful to encourage discussions about a proposed
+feature as it is being designed, and incorporate important constraints into
+the design while it's easier to change, before the design has been fully
+implemented.
+
+Some changes do not require an RFC:
+
+  - Rephrasing, reorganizing or refactoring
+  - Addition or removal of warnings
+  - Additions that strictly improve objective, numerical quality
+  criteria (speedup, better browser support)
+  - Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other implementors-of-React,
+  invisible to users-of-React.
+
+## What the process is
+
+In short, to get a major feature added to React, one usually first gets
+the RFC merged into the RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC
+is 'active' and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion
+into React.
+
+* Fork the RFC repo http://github.com/reactjs/rfcs
+* Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md` (where
+'my-feature' is descriptive. Don't assign an RFC number yet).
+* Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: **RFCs that do not
+present convincing motivation, demonstrate understanding of the
+impact of the design, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or
+alternatives tend to be poorly-received**.
+* 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.
+* 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.
+* Eventually, the team will decide whether the RFC is a candidate
+for inclusion in React.
+* RFCs that are candidates for inclusion in React will enter a "final comment
+period" lasting 7 days. The beginning of this period will be signaled with a
+comment and tag on the RFCs pull request.
+* An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the team and community.
+Significant modifications may trigger a new final comment period.
+* An RFC may be rejected by the team after public discussion has settled
+and comments have been made summarizing the rationale for rejection. A member of
+the team should then close the RFCs associated pull request.
+* An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A team
+member will merge the RFCs associated pull request, at which point the RFC will
+become 'active'.
+
+## The RFC life-cycle
+
+Once an RFC becomes active, then authors may implement it and submit the
+feature as a pull request to the React repo. Becoming 'active' is not a rubber
+stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately
+be merged; it does mean that the core team has agreed to it in principle
+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 whether anybody is currently working on it.
+
+Modifications to active RFCs can be done in followup PRs. 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; therefore we try to keep each RFC
+document somewhat in sync with the language feature as planned,
+tracking such changes via followup pull requests to the document.
+
+## Implementing an RFC
+
+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).
+
+## Reviewing RFCs
+
+Each week the team will attempt to review some set of open RFC
+pull requests.
+
+We try to make sure that any RFC that we accept is accepted at the
+weekly team meeting. Every accepted feature should have a core team champion,
+who will represent the feature and its progress.
+
+**React's RFC process owes its inspiration to the [Yarn RFC process], [Rust RFC process], and [Ember RFC process]**
+
+[Yarn RFC process]: https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs
+[Rust RFC process]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs
+[Ember RFC process]: https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs