Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Implementation of RFC 36 (#38)
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history 
* Implementation of RFC 36

see #36

* Fix reference to 'this RFC' -> RFC #36
  • Loading branch information
@globin @zimbatm
globin authored and zimbatm committed Jan 8, 2019
1 parent b8b0622 commit d9aad92
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Showing 2 changed files with 171 additions and 61 deletions.
230 changes: 170 additions & 60 deletions README.md
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -28,66 +28,176 @@ Certain changes do not require an RFC:
* Adding, updating and removing packages in Nixpkgs
* Fixing security updates and bugs that don't break interfaces

Pull requests that contain any of the aforementioned 'substantial' changes may be closed if there is no RFC connected to the proposed changes.

## Description of the process

In short, to get a major feature added to the Nix ecosystem, one should first
go through the RFC process in order to improve the likelihood of inclusion.
Here are roughly the steps that one would take:

* Fork the RFC repository https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs
* Copy `0000-template.md` to `rfcs/0000-my-feature.md` (where 'my-feature' is
descriptive. don't assign an RFC number yet).
* Fill in the RFC
* Submit a pull request. Rename the RFC with the PR number. (eg: PR #123 would
be `rfcs/0123-my-feature.md`)

At this point, the person submitting the RFC should find at least one "co-author"
that will help them bring the RFC to completion. The goal is to improve the
chances that the RFC is both desired and likely to be implemented.

Once the author is happy with the state of the RFC, they should seek for
wider community review by stating the readiness of the work. Advertisement on
the mailing-list and IRC is an acceptable way of doing that.

After a number of rounds of review the discussion should settle and a general
consensus should emerge. This bit is left intentionally vague and should be
refined in the future. We don't have a technical committee so controversial
changes will be rejected by default.

If a RFC is accepted then authors may implement it and submit the feature as a
pull request to the Nix or Nixpkgs repository. An 'accepted' RFC is not a rubber
stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be
merged; it does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed
to the feature and are amenable to merging it.

Whoever merges the RFC should do the following:

* Fill in the remaining metadata in the RFC header, including links for the
original pull request(s) and the newly created issue.
* Commit everything.

If a RFC is rejected, whoever merges the RFC should do the following:
* Move the RFC to the rejected folder
* Fill in the remaining metadata in the RFC header, including links for the
original pull request(s) and the newly created issue.
* Include a summary reason for the rejection
* Commit everything

## Role of the "co-author"

The goal for assigning a "co-author" is to help move the RFC along.

The co-author should:
* be available for discussion with the main author
* respond to inquiries in a timely manner
* help with fixing minor issues like typos so community discussion can stay
on design issues

The co-author doesn't necessarily have to agree with all the points of the RFC
but should generally be satisfied that the proposed additions are a good thing
for the community.
Pull requests that contain any of the aforementioned 'substantial' changes may
be closed if there is no RFC connected to the proposed changes.

## Terminology

##### RFC Steering Committee
A team of people defined by [RFC 36](./rfcs/0036-rfc-process-team-amendment.md)
and stays consistent until the team members are changed via a follow-up RFC.
This committee is responsible for forming an RFC Shepherd team from the
available nominations on each RFC. This team also names the leader of the
Shepherd team. This has to happen within 1 week after the PR has been opened.
Until then the Steering Committee is responsible for guiding the discussion. In
case of the Shepherding Team not doing its work the Steering Committee shall
encourage them or step in and assign new Shepherds. They also are in charge of
merging accepted and rejected RFCs. Generally by these expectations they should
find time to meet once a week for about an hour.

They have no special responsibility with regard to the content of an RFC, they
can weigh in on them, the same as any other community member, but are only in
charge of:
* selecting the Shepherds unanimously
* supervising that the Shepherds are carrying out their work
* committing the final RFC

##### Shepherd Team
A team of 3-4 community members defined unanimously by the RFC Steering
Committee, responsible for accepting or rejecting a specific RFC. This team is
created per RFC from community members nominated in the discussion on that RFC.

This team should be people who are very familiar with the main components
touched by the RFC. The author cannot be part of the Shepherd Team. In addition,
at most half of the Shepherd Team can be part of the RFC Steering Committee.

The resposibility of the team is to guide the discussion as long as it is
constructive, new points are brought up and the RFC is iterated on and from time
to time summarise the current state of discussion. If this is the case no longer,
then the Shepherd Team shall step in with a motion for FCP.

##### Shepherd Leader
The person in charge of the RFC process for a specific RFC, and responsible for
ensuring the process is followed in a timely fashion. The Shepherd Leader has no
special resposibility with regard to moving an undecided Shepherd Team to a
certain decision.

##### Final Comment Period (FCP)
A period of ten calendar days, which will be called by the Shepherd Team after
the RFC has received ample discussion and enough of the tradeoffs have been
discussed. The Shepherd Team will propose to either accept or reject the RFC
after the FCP.


## Process from Creation to Merge

*In short, to get a major change included in Nix or nixpkgs, one must
first get the RFC merged into the RFC repository as a markdown file under the
`accepted` directory. At that point the RFC is accepted and may be implemented
with the goal of eventual inclusion into Nix or nixpkgs.*

0. Have a cool idea!
1. Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: RFCs that do not present
convincing motivation, demonstrate understanding of the impact of the design,
or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or alternatives tend to be
poorly-received. You might want to create a PR in your fork of the RFCs
repository to help you flesh it out with a few supporters or chat/video
conference with a few people involved in the topic of the RFC.
2. In case your RFC is a technical proposal, you might want to prepare a
prototype of your idea to firstly make yourself aware of potential pitfalls
and also help reviewers understand the RFC. Code may be able to explain some
issues in short.
3. Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design feedback
from the larger community, and the author should be prepared to revise it in
response.
4. For the nomination process for potential members of the RFC Shepherd Team,
that is specific to each RFC, anyone interested can either nominate another
person or themselves to be a potential member of the RFC Shepherd Team. This
can already be done when submitting the PR.
5. The RFC Steering Committee assigns a subset of the nominees to the RFC
Shepherd Team and designates a leader for it. This has to be done
unanimously.
6. Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are much
more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments. Feel
free to reach out to the RFC Shepherd Team leader in particular to get help
identifying stakeholders and obstacles.
7. The RFC Shepherd Team will discuss the RFC pull request, as much as possible
in the comment thread of the pull request itself. Discussion outside of the
pull request, either offline or in a video conference, that might be
preferable to get to a solution for complex issues, will be summarized on the
pull request comment thread.
8. RFCs rarely go through this process unchanged, especially as alternatives and
drawbacks are shown. You can make edits, big and small, to the RFC to clarify
or change the design, but make changes as new commits to the pull request,
and leave a comment on the pull request explaining your changes.
Specifically, do not squash or rebase commits after they are visible on the
pull request.
9. At some point, a member of the RFC Shepherd Team will propose a "motion for
final comment period" (FCP), along with a disposition for the RFC (merge or
close).
* This step is taken when enough of the tradeoffs have been discussed that
the RFC Shepherd Team is in a position to make a decision. That does not
require consensus amongst all participants in the RFC thread (which is
usually impossible). However, the argument supporting the disposition on
the RFC needs to have already been clearly articulated, and there should
not be a strong consensus against that position outside of the RFC
Shepherd Team. RFC Shepherd Team members use their best judgment in taking
this step, and the FCP itself ensures there is ample time and notification
for stakeholders to push back if it is made prematurely.
* For RFCs with lengthy discussion, the motion to FCP is usually preceded by
a summary comment trying to lay out the current state of the discussion
and major tradeoffs/points of disagreement.
* Before actually entering FCP, all members of the RFC Shepherd Team must
sign off the motion.
10. The FCP lasts ten calendar days, so that it is open for at least 5 business
days. It is also advertised widely, e.g. in NixOS Weekly and through
Discourse announcements. This way all stakeholders have a chance to lodge
any final objections before a decision is reached.
11. In most cases, the FCP period is quiet, and the RFC is either merged or
closed. However, sometimes substantial new arguments or ideas are raised,
the FCP is canceled, and the RFC goes back into development mode.
12. In case of acceptance, the RFC Steering Committee merges the PR into the
`accepted` directory. Otherwise the RFC's pull request is closed. If no
consensus can be reached on the RFC but the idea in general is accepted, it
gets closed, too. A note is added that is should be proposed again, when the
circumstances, that are stopping the discussion to come to another decision,
change.


![RFC Process](./rfcs/0036-rfc-process.png)
![Review Process](./rfcs/0036-review-process.png)


## The RFC life-cycle

Once an RFC is accepted the authors may implement it and submit the feature as a
pull request to the Nix or nixpkgs repo. Being accepted is not a rubber stamp,
and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be merged; it
does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed to the
feature and are amenable to merging it. In general though this means that the
implementation will be merged as long as there are no substantial technical
objections to the implementation.

Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted implies nothing about
what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor does it imply anything
about whether a Nix/nixpkgs developer has been assigned the task of implementing
the feature. While it is not necessary that the author of the RFC also write the
implementation, it is by far the most effective way to see an RFC through to
completion: authors should not expect that other project developers will take on
responsibility for implementing their accepted feature.

Minor modifications to accepted RFCs can be done in follow-up pull requests. 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 after implementation.

In general, once accepted, RFCs should not be substantially changed. Only very
minor changes should be submitted as amendments. More substantial changes should
be new RFCs, with a note added to the original RFC. Exactly what counts as a
"very minor change" is up to the RFC Shepherd Team of the RFC to be amended, to
be decided in cooperation with the RFC Steering Committee.


## Members of the RFC Steering Committee

The current members of the RFC Steering Committee are:

- Eelco Dolstra (edolstra, niksnut)
- Shea Levy (shlevy)
- Domen Kožar (domenkozar)
- Jörg Thalheim (Mic92)
- Robin Gloster (globin)


## License

Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion rfcs/0036-rfc-process-team-amendment.md
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ feature: rfc-process-team-amendment
start-date: 2018-10-27
author: Robin Gloster <mail@glob.in>
co-authors: Graham Christensen <graham@grahamc.com>
related-issues: 1 (initial process), 24 (implementation)
related-issues: 1 (initial process), 38 (implementation)
---

# Summary
Expand Down

0 comments on commit d9aad92

Please sign in to comment.