Add RFC for adding state field

Signed-off-by: Anthony Emengo <aemengo@vmware.com>

0000-template.md

@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 - Name: (fill in the feature name: My Feature)
 - Start Date: (fill in today's date: YYYY-MM-DD)
 - Author(s): (Github usernames)
+- State: Approved | On Hold
 - RFC Pull Request: (leave blank)
 - CNB Pull Request: (leave blank)
 - CNB Issue: (leave blank)

merge-rfc.sh

@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ TARGET=${SOURCE//0000/$(printf "%04d" "${ID}")}
 
 sed -i '' "s|- RFC Pull Request:.*|- RFC Pull Request: [rfcs#${PR}](https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs/pull/${PR})|" "${SOURCE}"
 sed -i '' "s|- CNB Issue:.*|- CNB Issue: $issues|" "${SOURCE}"
+sed -i '' "s|- State:.*|- State: **Approved** | On Hold|" "${SOURCE}"
 git mv "${SOURCE}" "${TARGET}"
 git add "${TARGET}"
 git commit --signoff --message "RFC ${ID}

text/0000-add-state-field.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# Meta
+[meta]: #meta
+- Name: Add State to RFC Metadata
+- Start Date: 2021-07-14
+- Author(s): @aemengo, @ekcasey
+- State: Approved | On Hold
+- RFC Pull Request: (leave blank)
+- CNB Pull Request: (leave blank)
+- CNB Issue: (leave blank)
+- Supersedes: (put "N/A" unless this replaces an existing RFC, then link to that RFC)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+This is a proposal to add a `State:` field to the `Meta` section of the RFC template.
+
+# Definitions
+[definitions]: #definitions
+
+**Core team:** The party that votes on the approval of RFCs.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+This RFC formally introduces the **"On Hold"** state for an RFC, in a way that's clear to the community.
+
+# What it is
+[what-it-is]: #what-it-is
+
+A new `State:` field in the `Meta` section of the RFC template. See [#meta](#meta) for example.
+
+The acceptable values are distinguished in the following ways:
+- **Approved**: The Core team has approved the RFC and is accepting PRs for its implementation.
+- **On Hold**: The Core team has approved the RFC, but there's since been contention about aspects of the proposal. PRs are currently not being accepted for its implementation, until these issues can be resolved.
+
+The `State:` field does not intend to reflect states that are already implied by the RFC process. Examples including: *Draft*, *In Review*, *Closed*, etc.
+
+# How it Works
+[how-it-works]: #how-it-works
+
+We will add the following to the RFC `Meta` section template:
+
+```
+- State: Approved | On Hold
+```
+
+When an RFC is approved, the [../merge-rfc.sh](../merge-rfc.sh) script reflects the change like so:
+
+```
+- State: **Approved** | On Hold
+```
+
+When an RFC is put on hold (_via Pull Request_) then change is reflected like so:
+
+```
+- State: Approved | **On Hold**
+```
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+* This field might get out of sync if not properly maintained.
+
+# Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+- Communicate "On Hold" state through word of mouth
+- Reject the "On Hold" state altogether
+
+# Prior Art
+[prior-art]: #prior-art
+
+- TensorFlow has an ["Status" field](https://github.com/tensorflow/community/blob/master/rfcs/yyyymmdd-rfc-template.md)
+
+# Unresolved Questions
+[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions
+
+- Should **"Implemented"** be one of the accepted values?
+    - Perhaps, but then what's the process of keeping the _Implemented_ state in sync?
+
+- How do we retroactively add a **State:** field to prior RFCs?
+    - Manually?
+
+- How do we validate the [#meta](#meta) section of prior RFCs?
+    - Perhaps we make a [../validate-rfcs.sh](../validate-rfcs.sh) script that lints the **#meta** section of all rfcs?