Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Reform the RFC process #90

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Reform the RFC process #90

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e83a0a8
Reform the RFC process
adpaco-aws Nov 27, 2024
10b26fe
Add pointer to process-v1
adpaco-aws Nov 27, 2024
9658367
Modify template
adpaco-aws Nov 27, 2024
33cd951
Pointers to v1 in timeline for committed RFCs
adpaco-aws Nov 27, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 1 addition & 2 deletions 0000-template.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -9,8 +9,7 @@

- Started: (fill in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
- Accepted: TBD
- Landed: TBD
- Released: TBD
- Stabilized: TBD

## Summary

Expand Down
78 changes: 43 additions & 35 deletions README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -6,40 +6,51 @@ The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and

An RFC goes through some subset of the following stages:

* [**Pending**](https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/issues?q=label%3Apending%2Carchived): when the RFC is submitted as a pull request (PR) to this repository. We use PRs to provide design feedback and come to a consensus about whether an RFC should be accepted.
* [**Pre-acceptance Experimental**](https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/issues?q=label%3Apre-acceptance-experimental+): the RFC has not yet been accepted (or rejected), but permission has been given for an “experimental” Rust implementation on `main` via a dedicated Cargo feature. See “Experimental features” below.
* [**Final comment period (FCP)**](https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/issues?q=label%3Afinal-comment-period+): the “last chance” for public comments or objections before an RFC is officially accepted or rejected. Cedar maintainers will announce the FCP’s beginning and end, and whether the intent is to accept or reject the RFC following the FCP. The FCP will typically last one calendar week. At the end of the FCP, if there was no new substantial discussion, the RFC will either be accepted (entering the Active state below) or rejected.
* [**Active**](https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/pulls?q=label%3Aactive+): when an RFC’s associated PR is merged. The RFC being active does not guarantee that it is currently under development. It also does not guarantee that the changes will eventually be accepted or released in the originally envisioned form — it is possible that the RFC could still be modified or even rejected via additional PRs to the `rfcs` repo modifying the RFC’s text. However, a PR proposing to reject an already-active RFC will be subject to the same bar as an RFC itself, including requiring an FCP.
* **Active Experimental**: the RFC is Active and also has an experimental Rust implementation available via a dedicated Cargo feature. See "Experimental features" below.
* [**Landed**](https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/issues?q=label%3Alanded+): the RFC's changes have been accepted to the `main` branch (with no experimental feature flag) and will be released with the next appropriate Cedar release, following semver.
* [**Rejected**](https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/issues?q=label%3Arejected%2Csuperceded%2Cmoved-to-issue): the RFC is officially rejected or dropped.

Here's a flowchart of the RFC process: (Newly-opened RFCs start in Pending)

![RFC process flowchart](process-flowchart.png)
* [**Pending**](https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/issues?q=label%3Apending%2Carchived):
when the RFC is submitted as a pull request (PR) to this repository.
We use PRs to provide design feedback and come to a consensus about whether an RFC should be accepted or rejected.
Before an RFC is officially accepted or rejected, they must undergo a [Final Comment Period](https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/issues?q=label%3Afinal-comment-period+),
a sub-stage representing the “last chance” for public comments or objections to the decision.
Cedar maintainers will announce the FCP's beginning and end, and whether the intent is to accept or reject the RFC following the FCP.
The FCP will typically last one calendar week.
At the end of the FCP, if there was no new substantial discussion, the RFC will move to the next stage.
* [**Unstable**](https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/issues?q=label%3Aunstable+):
the RFC is officially accepted.
Note that a proof-of-concept implementation may not be available at this point.
See [Experimental features](#experimental-features) for more details.
* [**Stable**](https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/issues?q=label%3Astable+):
the RFC is officially accepted and its changes have met the [stabilization requirements](#stabilization-requirements).
This implies that the RFC does not include outstanding questions nor the proposed changes differ from the implementation.
Additionally, the implementation meets the specification and testing requirements for stabilization.
* [**Rejected**](https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/issues?q=label%3Arejected%2Csuperceded%2Cmoved-to-issue):
the RFC is officially rejected or dropped.

Here's a flowchart of the RFC process: (Newly-opened RFCs start in [Pending](https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/issues?q=label%3Apending))

![RFC process flowchart](process-v2-flowchart.png)

Note: The previous version of the RFC process can be found [here](./archive/process-v1/).

### Experimental features

Some RFCs will go through a “Pre-acceptance Experimental” and/or an “Active Experimental” phase. During these phases, an experimental Rust implementation may be available via a dedicated Cargo feature (one feature per RFC), including on `main` and in crates.io releases. The RFC’s changes may not yet be reflected in the formal model or Cedar DRT infrastructure in [cedar-spec]. Experimental features are unstable and do not come with semver guarantees — they may undergo breaking changes even in dot releases or patch releases. This is analogous to Rust “nightly features”.
During the "Pending" and/or "Unstable" stages, an experimental Rust implementation may be available
via a dedicated Cargo feature (one feature per RFC), including on `main` and in crates.io releases.
The RFC's changes may not yet be reflected in the formal model or Cedar DRT infrastructure in [cedar-spec].
Experimental features are unstable and do not come with semver guarantees — they may undergo breaking changes even in dot releases or patch releases.
This is analogous to Rust “nightly features”.

Experimental features are a way for the community to “try out” a feature that may still undergo revisions, and are also a way for contributors to help implement Cedar features in Rust without needing to make changes to the formal model or Cedar DRT infrastructure.

### More details on particular edges

* Edge A — Closing a pending RFC: Typically this only happens if the RFC author unilaterally chooses to close their RFC. If Cedar maintainers wish to reject a pending RFC, they’ll instead use edge G.
* Edge B — Moving to Pre-acceptance Experimental: With agreement from two Cedar maintainers (via comment on the RFC PR), an RFC may be moved to Pre-acceptance Experimental, which allows Rust implementation to be merged to `main` behind a Cargo feature flag.
* Edges C and D — Moving to FCP: After discussion on the RFC PR is clearly trending either towards accept (edge C) or reject (edge D), and all major questions have been resolved, the Cedar maintainers will meet and declare the RFC to have entered FCP, with the intent either to accept (edge C) or reject (edge D) the RFC.
* Edges E and F — Aborting FCP: If substantial new issues are raised during the FCP process, the RFC may be returned to its previous state, either Pending (edge E) or Pre-acceptance Experimental (edge F), for more discussions or revisions.
* Edge G — Rejecting an RFC: Following FCP-with-intent-to-reject, if there was no new substantial discussion during the FCP, the RFC will be rejected.
* Edge H — Accepting an RFC: Following FCP-with-intent-to-accept, if there was no new substantial discussion during the FCP, the RFC will be accepted, and it becomes Active (or, if an experimental feature is already available at this time, then it becomes Active Experimental).
* Edge J — Landing as an experimental feature: This requires that the implementation of the RFC passes code review and tests, but does not require that the corresponding changes have been made to the [cedar-spec] repo (yet). The code will be merged to `main` but hidden behind a dedicated Cargo feature.
* Edge K — Landing an active RFC: This requires that the implementation of the RFC passes code review and tests. See “Stabilization requirements” below for more on the requirements for this edge. When the PR is accepted, the code will be merged to `main` and released with the next appropriate Cedar release, following semver.
* Edge L — Stabilizing an experimental feature: To start the stabilization process, open a PR to `cedar` that removes the dedicated feature flag for this RFC and makes the feature available to all Cedar customers (stabilizes it). See “Stabilization requirements” below for more on the requirements for this edge. If the stabilization PR is accepted, the change will be merged to `main` and released with the next appropriate Cedar release, following semver.
* Edge M — Closing an Active or Active-Experimental RFC: Sometimes active RFCs could still be rejected based on additional discussion while it is active, or based on new implementation concerns that come to light during the active phase. However, since the RFC was previously accepted, this edge requires the same bar as an RFC itself, including requiring an FCP. This higher bar is represented as a dotted-line edge on the flowchart.
* Edge A — Accepting an RFC: Following an FCP with intent to accept, if there was no new substantial discussion during the FCP, the RFC will be accepted, and it becomes "Unstable".
* Edge B — Stabilizing an RFC: To start the stabilization process, open a PR in [`cedar`](https://github.com/cedar-policy/cedar) that removes the dedicated feature flag for this RFC and makes the feature available to all Cedar users. See [Stabilization requirements](#stabilization-requirements) below for more on the requirements for this edge. If the stabilization PR is accepted, the change will be merged to `main` and released with the next appropriate Cedar release, following semver. Then, open a PR to mark the RFC "Stable".
* Edge C — Rejecting an unstable RFC: Sometimes an RFC could still be rejected based on additional discussion or implementation concerns that come to light during the unstable stage. However, since the RFC was previously accepted, this edge requires the same bar as an RFC itself, including an FCP with intent to reject.
* Edge D — Rejecting a pending RFC: Following an FCP with intent to reject, if there was no new substantial discussion during the FCP, the RFC will be rejected. The FCP is not required if the author of the RFC chooses to withdraw it.

### Stabilization requirements

Stabilizing a new feature (edges K or L above) requires the following:
Stabilizing a new feature (edge B above) requires the following:

* Implementation of the RFC passes code review and tests
* If applicable, corresponding changes have been made to the [cedar-spec] repo, both the formal model and the DRT infrastructure
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -76,25 +87,22 @@ It's often helpful to get feedback on your concept before diving into the design

## What is the process?

In short, to get a major feature added to Cedar, you 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 Cedar.
In short, to get a major feature added to Cedar, you must first get the RFC merged into the RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is "Unstable" and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Cedar.

* Work on your proposal in a markdown file based on the template (<https://github.com/cedar-policy/rfcs/blob/main/0000-template.md>). 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. Copy your markdown file into `text/0000-my-feature.md`, where my-feature is descriptive.
* Fork this repository and create a PR with your markdown file. Once you have a PR, fill in the number in your filename with the PR number (e.g., `0003-my-feature.md` for PR #3). We will use this PR to provide feedback and to come to a consensus on whether the RFC should be accepted. Revisions to the RFC based on feedback should be done in the same PR.
* Your RFC is now Pending. See "The RFC life-cycle" above for more on the next steps.

## Details on Active RFCs

Once an RFC becomes active the author (or any other developer) may implement it and submit the feature as a pull request to the Cedar core repo. 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 RFCs can be done in followup PRs. 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 language feature as planned, tracking such changes via followup pull requests to the document.
* Your RFC is now "Pending". See [the RFC life-cycle](#the-rfc-life-cycle) above for more on the next steps.

## Implementing an RFC

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 PR).
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 before or after RFC has been accepted.
If you are interested in working on the implementation for an 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 PR).


An active RFC should have the link to the implementation PR listed if there is one. Feedback for the actual implementation should be conducted in the implementation PR instead of the original RFC PR.
Proof-of-concept implementations are encouraged but not required for an RFC to be accepted.
If there is a PR open for the proof-of-concept implementation, we recommend linking it in the RFC.
Feedback for the actual implementation should be conducted in the implementation PR instead of the original RFC PR.

## Reviewing RFCs

Expand Down
Loading