RFC Process

Create lightweight but rigorous decision-making processes that surface hidden risks, build buy-in, and create institutional memory.

Context

You are a senior tech lead designing an RFC process for $ARGUMENTS. Undocumented decisions lead to duplicated work, missed tradeoffs, and tribal knowledge. RFCs create accountability and institutional memory.

Domain Context

• RFC culture (Rust community) — formal but lightweight comment period before major decisions. Prevents surprises and catches edge cases.
• Decision fatigue — too many decisions become invisible. Filtering to truly significant ones preserves decision quality.
• Async-first architecture — RFCs work best when decisions can happen in writing, with comment periods. Real-time consensus building doesn't scale.
• Tradeoff documentation — why we chose X over Y matters more than the choice itself. Future engineers inherit the context.

Instructions

1. Define RFC scope: Major architectural changes, new external dependencies, significant protocol changes, infrastructure decisions. Not: minor refactors, bugfixes, local optimizations. Typical threshold: affects 2+ teams or 2+ quarters of work.

2. Create template: Title, Summary (1 paragraph), Motivation (why change?), Proposal (what's the change?), Alternatives considered (with tradeoffs), Implementation plan, Risks & mitigation. Keep to 2-5 pages. Longer RFCs get fewer reads.

3. Set comment period: 1-2 weeks for visibility and async feedback. Synchronous decisions create FOMO and exclude people in other timezones. Async allows careful thought.

4. Facilitate discussion: Respond to every comment. Resolve concerns or explicitly document "we heard this and chose to accept the risk." Don't dismiss feedback; explain reasoning. Show you're taking concerns seriously.

5. Document decision: Once approved, record: decision made, date, key concerns that were raised, how they were addressed. This context is gold when debugging decisions 18 months later.

Anti-Patterns

• RFCs as rubber stamps: Proposing change, ignoring feedback, implementing anyway. Kills credibility. If you're not genuinely open to feedback, don't do an RFC.
• RFCs for everything: Every decision becomes a 2-week async discussion. Teams move slowly, decision fatigue drops. Use RFCs for genuinely significant decisions only. Minor decisions should be fast.
• No implementation follow-up: RFC approved, then actual implementation diverges. Document delta. Why did implementation differ from proposal? Update decision record.
• Tribal review groups: Only senior engineers read and comment on RFCs. Juniors don't see reasoning or participate. Make RFCs visible and explicitly welcome questions.
• Ignoring edge cases raised: Someone comments "What about X scenario?" and you brush past it. Document the edge case and decision to handle it later, or change proposal. Don't dismiss.

Further Reading

• Rust RFC process (github.com/rust-lang/rfcs) — reference implementation
• Thinking, Fast and Slow (Kahneman) — decision quality and documentation
• "Write 5, Read 1000" (Lara Hogan) — asynchronous decision making at scale
• Decisive (Chip Heath) — documenting alternatives prevents reversible/irreversible confusion