Request for Comment (RFC) Process

environment.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+# Environment for building sphinx locally
+channels:
+  - conda-forge
+dependencies:
+  - myst-parser
+  - sphinx-book-theme
+  - pip:
+    - bikeshed

index.rst

@@ -15,12 +15,13 @@ are listed on the :doc:`tools/index` page.
 Sample NGFF datasets provided by the community can be found under :doc:`data/index`.
 
 .. toctree::
-   :maxdepth: 2
+   :maxdepth: 1
 
    about/index
    data/index
    publications/index
    specifications/index
+   rfc/index
    tools/index
 
 .. raw:: html

rfc/0/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+RFC-0
+=====
+
+Example

rfc/index.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+RFCs
+====
+
+.. toctree::
+
+   listing
+   process

rfc/listing.csv

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+RFC,Description,Date,Status
+`0 <0/index.html>`_,Original consensus model for decision making,2021,
+`x <x/index.html>`_,RFC Process Proposal,2024,

rfc/listing.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+RFC Listing
+===========
+
+.. toctree::
+   :glob:
+   :hidden:
+
+   */index
+
+.. csv-table:: RFC List
+   :file: listing.csv
+   :header-rows: 1

rfc/process.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+RFC Process
+===========
+
+.. toctree::
+   :maxdepth: 1
+   :hidden:
+
+   x/template
+
+The RFC process is defined in `RFC-x <x/index.html>`_
+and anyone interested in participating in the RFC
+process should familiarize themselves with that text.
+A `template <x/template.html>`_ is available for the
+creation of new RFCs. The diagram below shows the
+stages that an RFC progresses through.
+
+.. image:: x/diagram.png
+   :alt: Process Diagram

rfc/x/template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,304 @@
+# RFC Template
+
+Summary: Sentence fragment summary
+Status: WIP | In-Review | Approved | Obsolete
+Authors: ...
+Reviewers:
+Endorsers:
+
+
+## Overview
+
+The RFC begins with a brief overview. This section should be one or two
+paragraphs that just explains what the goal of this RFC is going to be, but
+without diving too deeply into the "why", "why now", "how", etc. Ensure anyone
+opening the document will form a clear understanding of the RFCs intent from
+reading this paragraph(s).
+
+## Background
+
+The next section is the "Background" section. This section should be at least
+two paragraphs and can take up to a whole page in some cases. The **guiding goal
+of the background section** is: as a newcomer to this project (new employee, team
+transfer), can I read the background section and follow any links to get the
+full context of why this change is necessary? 
+
+If you can't show a random engineer the background section and have them
+acquire nearly full context on the necessity for the RFC, then the background
+section is not full enough. To help achieve this, link to prior RFCs,
+discussions, and more here as necessary to provide context so you don't have to
+simply repeat yourself.
+
+## Proposal
+
+The next required section is "Proposal". Given the background above, this
+section proposes a solution. This should be an overview of the "how" for the
+solution, but for details further sections will be used.
+
+## Sections (at heading 2)
+
+From this point onwards, the sections and headers are generally freeform
+depending on the RFC, though it is typically preferable to make use of the
+sections listed below, though the order does not matter. Sections are styled as
+"Heading 2". Try to organize your information into self-contained sections that
+answer some critical question, and organize your sections into an order that
+builds up knowledge necessary (rather than forcing a reader to jump around to
+gain context).
+
+Sections often are split further into sub-sections styled "Heading 3". These
+sub-sections just further help to organize data to ease reading and discussion.
+
+## Requirements (Recommended Header)
+
+For the problem(s) solved by this RFC, what constrains the possible solutions?
+List other RFCs, or standards (ISO, etc.) which are applicable. It is suggested
+that the following text SHOULD be used in all RFCs:
+
+The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
+"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
+interpreted as described in [IETF RFC 2119][IETF RFC 2119]
+
+## Stakeholders (Recommended Header)
+
+Who has a stake in whether this RFC is accepted?
+
+* Facilitator: The person appointed to shepherd this RFC through the RFC
+  process.
+* Reviewers: List people whose vote (+1 or -1) will be taken into consideration
+  by the editor when deciding whether this RFC is accepted or rejected. Where
+  applicable, also list the area they are expected to focus on. In some cases
+  this section may be initially left blank and stakeholder discovery completed
+  after an initial round of socialization. Care should be taken to keep the
+  number of reviewers manageable, although the exact number will depend on the
+  scope of the RFC in question.
+* Consulted: List people who should review the RFC, but whose approval is not
+  required.
+* Socialization: This section may be used to describe how the design was
+  socialized before advancing to the "Iterate" stage of the RFC process. For
+  example: "This RFC was discussed at a working group meetings from 20xx-20yy"
+
+## Implementation (Recommended Header)
+
+Many RFCs have an "implementation" section which details how the implementation
+will work. This section should explain the rough specification changes. The
+goal is to give an idea to reviewers about the subsystems that require change
+and the surface area of those changes. 
+
+This knowledge can result in recommendations for alternate approaches that
+perhaps are idiomatic to the project or result in less packages touched. Or, it
+may result in the realization that the proposed solution in this RFC is too
+complex given the problem.
+
+For the RFC author, typing out the implementation in a high-level often serves
+as "[rubber duck debugging][rubber duck debugging]" and you can catch a lot of
+issues or unknown unknowns prior to writing any real code.
+
+## Drawbacks, risks, alternatives, and unknowns (Recommended Header)
+
+* What are the costs of implementing this proposal?
+* What known risks exist? What factors may complicate your project? Include:
+  security, complexity, compatibility, latency, service immaturity, lack of
+  team expertise, etc.
+* What other strategies might solve the same problem?
+* What questions still need to be resolved, or details iterated upon, to accept
+  this proposal? Your answer to this is likely to evolve as the proposal
+  evolves.
+* What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process
+  before this gets merged?
+* What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation
+  of this feature before stabilization?
+* What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be
+  addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this
+  RFC?
+
+## Abandoned Ideas (Optional Header)
+
+As RFCs evolve, it is common that there are ideas that are abandoned. Rather
+than simply deleting them from the document, you should try to organize them
+into sections that make it clear they're abandoned while explaining why they
+were abandoned.
+
+When sharing your RFC with others or having someone look back on your RFC in
+the future, it is common to walk the same path and fall into the same pitfalls
+that we've since matured from. Abandoned ideas are a way to recognize that path
+and explain the pitfalls and why they were abandoned.
+
+## Prior art and references (Optional Header)
+
+Is there any background material that might be helpful when reading this
+proposal? For instance, do other operating systems address the same problem
+this proposal addresses?
+
+Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. A
+few examples of what this can include are:
+
+Does this feature exist in other formats and what experiences has their
+community had?
+
+Are there any published papers or great posts that discuss this? If you have
+some relevant papers to refer to, this can serve as a more detailed theoretical
+background.
+
+This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the
+lessons from other domains, and provide readers of your RFC with a fuller
+picture. If there is no prior art, that is fine - your ideas are interesting to
+us whether they are brand new or if it is an adaptation from other languages.
+
+Note that while precedent set by other languages is some motivation, it does
+not on its own motivate an RFC.
+
+## Future possibilities (Optional Header)
+
+Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would be
+and how it would affect the specification and project as a whole in a holistic
+way. Try to use this section as a tool to more fully consider all possible
+interactions with the project in your proposal. Also consider how this all fits
+into the roadmap for the project and of the relevant sub-team.
+
+This is also a good place to "dump ideas", if they are out of scope for the RFC
+you are writing but otherwise related. If you have tried and cannot think of
+any future possibilities, you may simply state that you cannot think of
+anything.
+
+Note that having something written down in the future-possibilities section is
+not a reason to accept the current or a future RFC; such notes should be in the
+section on motivation or rationale in this or subsequent RFCs. The section
+merely provides additional information.
+
+## Performance (Recommended Header)
+
+What impact will this proposal have on performance? What benchmarks should we
+create to evaluate the proposal? To evaluate the implementation? Which of those
+benchmarks should we monitor on an ongoing basis?
+
+Do you expect any (speed / memory)? How will you confirm?
+
+There should be microbenchmarks. Are there?
+
+There should be end-to-end tests and benchmarks. If there are not (since this
+is still a design), how will you track that these will be created?
+
+## Backwards Compatibility (Recommended Header)
+
+Backwards compatibility comes in two flavors: FIDL file source compatibility,
+and ABI or wire format compatibility. This section should speak to both. Over
+time, the ability to make backwards-incompatible changes will get harder.
+
+If you are introducing a new data type or language feature, consider what
+changes you would expect users to make to FIDL definitions without breaking
+users of the generated code. If your feature places any new source
+compatibility restrictions on the generated language bindings, list those here.
+
+## Security considerations (Optional Header)
+
+What impact will this proposal have on security? Does the proposal require a
+security review?
+
+A good starting point is to think about how the system might encounter
+untrusted inputs and how those inputs might be used to manipulate the system.
+From there, consider how known classes of vulnerabilities might apply to the
+system and what tools and techniques can be applied to avoid those
+vulnerabilities.
+
+## Privacy considerations (Optional Header)
+
+What impact will this proposal have on privacy? Does the proposal require a
+privacy review?
+
+A good starting point is to think about how user data might be collected,
+stored, or processed by your system. From there, consider the lifecycle of such
+data and any data protection techniques that may be employed.
+
+## Testing (Recommended Header)
+
+How will you test your feature? A typical testing strategy involves unit,
+integration, and end-to-end tests. Are our existing test frameworks and
+infrastructure sufficient to support these tests or does this proposal require
+additional investment in those areas?
+
+If your proposal defines a contract implemented by other people, how will those
+people test that they have implemented the contract correctly? Consider, for
+example, creating a conformance test suite for this purpose.
+
+## UI/UX (Optional Header)
+
+If there are user- or frontend-impacting changes by this RFC, it is important
+to have a "UI/UX" section. User-impacting changes might include changes in how
+images will be rendered. Frontend-impacting changes might include the need to
+perform additional preprocessing of inputs before displaying to users.
+
+This section is effectively the "implementation" section for the user
+experience. The goal is to explain the changes necessary, any impacts to
+backwards compatibility, any impacts to normal workflow, etc.
+
+As a reviewer, this section should be checked to see if the proposed changes
+feel like the rest of the ecosystem. Further, if the breaking changes are
+intolerable or there is a way to make a change while preserving compatibility,
+that should be explored.
+
+## Tutorials and Examples (Optional Header)
+
+TODO
+
+## Style Notes (EXAMPLE)
+
+All RFCs should follow similar styling and structure to ease reading.
+
+TODO: This section should be updated as more style decisions are made
+so that users of the template can simply cut-n-paste sections.
+
+### Heading Styles
+
+"Heading 2" should be used for section titles. We do not use "Heading 1"
+because aesthetically the text is too large. Google Docs will use Heading 2 as
+the outermost headers in the generated outline.
+
+"Heading 3" should be used for sub-sections.
+
+Further heading styles can be used for nested sections, however it is rare that
+a RFC goes beyond "Heading 4," and rare itself that "Heading 4" is reached.
+
+### Lists
+
+When making lists, it is common to bold the first phrase/sentence/word to bring
+some category or point to attention. For example, a list of API considerations:
+
+* *Format* should be widgets
+* *Protocol* should be widgets-rpc
+* *Backwards* compatibility should be considered.
+
+### Spelling
+
+American spelling is preferred.
+
+### Typeface
+
+Type size should use this template's default configuration (11pt for body text,
+larger for headings), and the type family should be Arial. No other typeface
+customization (e.g., color, highlight) should be made other than italics, bold,
+and underline.
+
+### Code Samples
+
+Code samples should be indented (tab or spaces are fine as long as it is
+consistent) text using the Courier New font. Syntax highlighting can be
+included if possible but isn't necessary. Please ensure the highlighted syntax
+is the proper font size and using the font Courier New so non-highlighted
+samples don't appear out of place.
+
+CLI output samples are similar to code samples but should be highlighted with
+the color they'll output if it is known so that the RFC could also cover
+formatting as part of the user experience.
+
+```
+    func example() {
+      <-make(chan struct{})
+    }
+```
+
+Note: This document is based on the [RFC template from Hashicorp][template]
+(TODO: license requested).
+
+[IETF RFC 2119]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
+[rubber duck debugging]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging
+[template]: https://works.hashicorp.com/articles/rfc-template