Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Aug 22, 2018. It is now read-only.

A guide for writing an RFC #4

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 25, 2018
Merged

A guide for writing an RFC #4

merged 4 commits into from
Jan 25, 2018

Conversation

orta
Copy link
Contributor

@orta orta commented Jan 18, 2018

Just threw down some notes to get started.

@orta
Copy link
Contributor Author

orta commented Jan 19, 2018

I tested out the resolution step on: https://github.com/artsy/potential/issues/127#issuecomment-358997987

@damassi
Copy link
Member

damassi commented Jan 19, 2018

Once it's ready we should make sure to post a reference to this in potential.

erikdstock
erikdstock reviewed Jan 19, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@erikdstock erikdstock left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

RFCs.md Outdated

## Additional Context:

You can see our discussion [in slack here](/link/to/slack.com)
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Assuming I am understanding this correctly, I would nest 'Additional context' within 'level of support' and 'exceptions' within 'next steps', possibly putting 'next steps' last, for example:

Resolution

We decided to do it.

Level of Support

Majority acceptance, with conflicting feedback.

Additional Context:

Some people were in favor of it, but some people said they didn't want to do it for project X.

Next Steps

We will implement it mostly.

Exceptions

We will not implement it on project X. We will revisit the decision in 1 year.

@orta orta changed the title [WIP] A guide for writing an RFC A guide for writing an RFC Jan 23, 2018
@artsy-peril
Copy link

artsy-peril bot commented Jan 23, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Warnings
⚠️

Please assign someone to merge this PR, and optionally include people who should review.

Typos for GraphQL-Schema-Design.md

Line Typo
33 ance, rather than mimicking a backend endpoint that allows one to f
75 points into the graph that is Artsy’s data set.
79 An ‘artwork’ is such a model, Artsy’s system
83 graph (e.g. when you need to refetch a node without needing to ref
83 tch a node without needing to refetch all parent nodes along the pa
99 [the spec](https://facebook.github.io/r
115 As we expand our microservices oriented architecture and tak
116 .e. database) in an effort to colocate schema code next to
122 microservices.
126 submissions under an ‘authentcated user’:

Typos for RFCs.md

Line Typo
1 ess used in large open source orgs to coordinate talking about a
20 unces the RFC in a weekly dev standup.
Got false positives?

Make changes to the global settings spellcheck.json in /artsy/artsy-danger.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS

@cavvia
Copy link

cavvia commented Jan 23, 2018

Thanks for this @orta! I'm pretty happy with the streamlined template and process you outlined. I think the onus has to be on as little overhead as is feasible. And it sounds like a good use of Peril too.

@orta orta mentioned this pull request Jan 23, 2018
Closed
@orta
Copy link
Contributor Author

orta commented Jan 23, 2018

Thanks peeps, and thanks for the feedback @erikdstock - I agree and added your changes

@orta orta mentioned this pull request Jan 23, 2018
Merged
@sarahscott
Copy link

Do you want to incorporate the ideas the team discussed re: consensus-building here, or are RFCs specifically for individual developers doing highly individual work?

@orta
Copy link
Contributor Author

orta commented Jan 24, 2018

I'd consider them as attacking different problems, none of our active RFCs on potential or artsy-danger feel like they are big enough to warrant that much process. I did note that if at the resolution stage it's not resolved then it's probably a good time to consider that though.

Resolving an RFC requires you to have some nuance about the feedback. If it seems to be unresolved, or still active a week later then calling a town hall style meeting for people involved will probably shake out some come kind of resolution.

@orta
Copy link
Contributor Author

orta commented Jan 25, 2018

Alright, I'm good with where this is, mergin'

@orta orta merged commit 72ef90b into master Jan 25, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@erikdstock erikdstock erikdstock left review comments

@ashfurrow ashfurrow ashfurrow approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
6 participants
@orta @damassi @cavvia @sarahscott @ashfurrow @erikdstock