What's our approval / rejection process?

[PoignardAzur]

The current README doesn't specify how we as a community decide whether an RFC is rejected or approved.

Some possibilities:

• Our glorious BDFL Raph makes the decision. (Although this is exactly the kind of responsibility he's trying to decentralize, so probably not.)
• The issue is set to a vote. Follow up question: who's the voting pool?
• Each RFC is assigned (by Raph?) a maintainer, who makes the ultimate decision.

In any case, we also need to figure out when the above happens. Does each PR have an expiration date after which a decision must be made? Or does the approve/reject decision only happen when the author requests it?

In any case, we probably don't want to overthink this too much, or rely on automation besides basic Github features. We're not at the scope of eg the Rust project who do need very elaborate processes.

[PoignardAzur]

Raph proposed this workflow during the last Office Hours:

• We discuss the RFC during an Office Hours call.
• At the end of the discussion, we ask if everyone present is fine merging it.
• If so, the RFC is merged and thus accepted, and we create a tracking issue.

That leaves the question of "what's the process to nominate a RFC for discussion during a call", but it probably doesn't need to be too formal. A ping on Github is probably fine, using the "Assignee" system.

TODO:

• Formalize what I just wrote.
• Write a procedure in the README.
• Include a link to the Xi instance.

[PoignardAzur]

Done in #3.