docs: document RFC final comment period guidelines #10181
Conversation
|
LGTM |
|
Review status: 0 of 1 files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion, some commit checks pending. docs/RFCS/README.md, line 22 at r1 (raw file):
s/de/du :) Comments from Reviewable |
| and if there is consensus to proceed with the project, announce that | ||
| the RFC is entering its Final Comment Period (FCP) using the method | ||
| de jour (https://forum.cockroachlabs.com/ at the time of this | ||
| writing). The FCP should last a minimum of two working days to allow |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The FCP should also be announced on the github PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done, with a bit of a rewrite.
| consensus to proceed after the FCP, change the `Status` field of the | ||
| document to `in-progress`, update the `RFC PR` field, and merge the | ||
| PR. If the project is rejected, either abandon the PR or merge it | ||
| with a status of `rejected` (depending on whether the document and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be worth mentioning that accepted RFCs can hit snags during implementation that could have been caught during the RFC review process. This is undesirable and something we should try to avoid, but hard to eliminate completely unless we make the RFC process overly onerous. For example, what happens if an expert on part of the system is on an extended vacation when an RFC is being reviewed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would be the purpose of such a mention? In other words, what is the guidance being issued to the reader, when they encounter such a case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The purpose would be to set expectations: an accepted RFC is not an immutable contract. We can back out of them.
|
Review status: 0 of 1 files reviewed at latest revision, 3 unresolved discussions. docs/RFCS/README.md, line 22 at r1 (raw file):
|
|
Review status: 0 of 1 files reviewed at latest revision, 3 unresolved discussions, some commit checks pending. Comments from Reviewable |
This change is