Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.
Some changes though are “substantial”, and we ask that these be put through a bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the Kadalu community and the [sub-team]s.
The “RFC” (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the Kadalu echosystem, so that all stakeholders can be confident about the direction the community.
You need to follow this process if you intend to make “substantial” changes to repos in github/kadalu organization, or the RFC process itself. What constitutes a “substantial” change is evolving based on community norms and varies depending on what part of the ecosystem you are proposing to change, but may include the following.
Some changes do not require an RFC:
If you submit a pull request to implement a new feature without going through the RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC first.
It’s often helpful to get feedback on your concept before diving into the level of API design detail required for an RFC. You may open an issue on this repo to start a high-level discussion, with the goal of eventually formulating an RFC pull request with the specific implementation design. We also highly recommend sharing drafts of RFCs in #dev-rfc on the Kadalu Slack channel for early feedback.
In short, to get a major feature added to Kadalu, one must first get the RFC merged into the RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is ‘active’ and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Kadalu.
0000-template.md, for deprecation RFCs it is
deprecation-template.md. Copy the template file to
text/0000-my-feature.md, where ‘my-feature’ is descriptive. Don’t assign an RFC number yet.
Once an RFC becomes active the relevant teams will plan the feature and create issues in the relevant repositories. Becoming ‘active’ is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be merged; it does mean that the core team has agreed to it in principle and are amenable to merging it.
Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is ‘active’ implies nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor whether anybody is currently working on it.
Modifications to active RFC’s can be done in followup PR’s. We strive to write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of the feature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every merged RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at the time of the next major release; therefore we try to keep each RFC document somewhat in sync with the feature as planned, tracking such changes via followup pull requests to the document.
The author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC author (like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation for review after the RFC has been accepted.
If you are interested in working on the implementation for an ‘active’ RFC, but cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask (e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue).
Each core team is responsible for reviewing open RFCs. The team must ensure that if an RFC is relevant to their team’s responsibilities the team is correctly specified in the ‘Relevant Team(s)’ section of the RFC front-matter. The team must also ensure that each RFC addresses any consequences, changes, or work required in the team’s area of responsibility.
As it is with the wider community, the RFC process is the time for teams and team members to push back on, encourage, refine, or otherwise comment on proposals.
@kadaluioabout the FCP
Renderedlinks often go stale when the branch or fork is deleted)