Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
143 lines (106 loc) · 7.09 KB

0000-template.md

File metadata and controls

143 lines (106 loc) · 7.09 KB
Raw

RFC Proposal

  • RFC Proposal ID: 0000-my-awesome-feature (fill me in with a unique ident)
  • Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
  • RFC PR: rust-lang/rfcs#0000
  • JIRA Ticket(s):

Write a brief summary here: a one paragraph explanation of the feature. Try to structure it like an "elevator pitch": it should provide readers with a high-level understanding of the goals and proposed solution.

Please note: many of the other sections below will not be needed for some proposals; don't waste time writing responses that don't deliver real value. For any such not-needed section, simply write in "N/A".

Status

  • Status: (Proposed/Approved/Rejected/Implemented)
  • Implementation JIRA Ticket(s):

Table of Contents

Motivation

Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome? Why is now the appropriate time to address this?

Proposed Solution

Explain the proposal as if it was already implemented and shipped, and you were just explaining it to another developer or user. That generally means:

  • Introducing new named concepts.
  • Identifying and address each of the various audiences who might (or should) care about this proposal. Explaining the solution using concepts and terms relevant to eaach of them. Explaining how they should think about the solution; detailing the impact as concretely as possible. Possible audiences might include:
    • Internal team: engineers, operators, product management, business owners.
    • External users: engineers, operators, product management, business owners, end users.
  • Explaining the feature largely in terms of examples.
    • Screencasts are often a good idea.
      • On Mac OS X, you can use the built-in Quicktime Player or the built-in Mac OS X Mojave (and up) feature.
    • Diagrams are often a good idea.
  • As part of implementing this proposal, will any documentation updates be needed, e.g. changelogs, Confluence pages, etc.? If so, draft them now! Include the draft as a subsection or addendum.

Proposed Solution: Detailed Design

This is the technical portion of the RFC. Explain the design in sufficient detail that:

  • Its interaction with other features is clear.
  • It is reasonably clear how the feature would be implemented.
  • Corner cases are dissected by example.

The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and explain more fully how the detailed proposal makes those examples work.

Proposed Solution: Unresolved Questions

Collect a list of action items to be resolved or officially deferred before this RFC is submitted for final comment, including:

  • 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?

Proposed Solution: Drawbacks

Why should we not do this?

Proposed Solution: Notable Alternatives

  • Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs?
  • What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not choosing them?
  • What is the impact of not doing this?

Prior Art

Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. A few examples of what this can include are:

  • For feature proposals: Does this feature exist in other similar-ish APIs and what experience have their community had?
  • For architecture proposals: Is this architecture used by other CMS or fedgov systems and what experience have they had?
  • For process proposals: Is this process used by other CMS or fedgov programs and what experience have they had?
  • For other teams: What lessons can we learn from what other communities have done here?
  • Papers and other references: 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 languages, 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 programs is some motivation, it does not on its own motivate an RFC. Please also take into consideration that we (and the government in general) sometimes intentionally diverge from common "best practices".

Future Possibilities

Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would be and how it would affect the language 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 and language in your proposal. Also consider how the 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.

Addendums

The following addendums are required reading before voting on this proposal:

  • (none at this time)

Please note that some of these addendums may be encrypted. If you are unable to decrypt the files, you are not authorized to vote on this proposal.