RFC to Github issues.

[jmprusi]

Hi folks, we should discuss the process around moving from an accepted RFC to GitHub issues, as now there's nothing defined.

I will propose a simple template and process as starting point for the discussion:

• Once an RFC is accepted, the responsibles should create a github issue following a similar template:

---

Title: [RFC Name/Title]

Summary

[Brief overview of what the RFC entails]

Link to RFC: [Link to the document, repo, or gist containing the RFC]

Related GitHub Issues:

• Issue1
• Issue2
• Issue3

Dependencies:

[ Optional section, to list any tasks or issues outside this RFC that need to be completed before/alongside these tasks.]

• IssueXX

Updates and Amendments:

[ This section should contain all the changes made to the RFC proposal due decisions/feedback/difficulty during implementation time. If some feature has cut short, or not fully implemented should appear in this section]

The RFC described this situation, but it is already obsolete due to XX and YY...

---

• This issue should be assigned to the responsibles that appear in the RFC.

• This issue will serve as an aggregator of all the related tasks/issues that are required to fully implement the linked RFC, making it easy to track/discover the on-going work.

• Once all the linked tasks/issues have been completed and what's described on the RFC implemented, this main issue can be closed.

What do you think?

[awgreene]

Should we include a link to the Brief for additional context?

[jmprusi]

You can jump to it from the RFC, but we can add another link

[awgreene]

Should we remove the checkboxes from the Task/Issues section given that the issues will have a strikethrough format once they're completed? Checkboxes seem to introduce an additional manual step.

[jmprusi]

Done!

[awgreene]

Can we rename the Tasks/Issues section to Related GitHub Issues?

[jmprusi]

Done!

[ncdc]

I suggest we keep it as simple as possible to minimize effort:

Issue title: RFC name

Issue body:

Link to RFC: link

Task list
- [ ] Some task

[awgreene]

There’s been a number of off discussion proposing that we avoid introducing a template and instead simply let the submitter define the best format, unless I hear opposition, I’m going to close this discussion at end of day.

Oh, please like this comment if you support not adding a template for now.

[awgreene]

Closing this to avoid decrease barrier of entry to the project as discussed above.