Establish RFC process

0000-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: (fill with a unique identifier, ex: my-awesome-feature)
+- Start Date: (fill with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
+- RFC Status: Draft
+- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
+- Salt Issue: (leave this empty)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Brief explanation of the feature.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome?
+
+If this RFC is not accepted, the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. Enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too closely to the solution you have in mind.
+
+# Design
+[design]: #detailed-design
+
+This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody familiar
+with the product to understand, and for somebody familiar with the internals to implement. It should include:
+
+- Definition of any new terminology
+- Examples of how the feature is used.
+- Corner-cases
+- A basic code example in case the proposal involves a new or changed API
+- Outline of a test plan for this feature. How do you plan to test it? Can it be automated?
+
+## Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+What other designs have been considered? What is the impact of not doing this?
+
+## Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+What parts of the design are still TBD?
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+Why should we *not* do this? Please consider:
+
+- Implementation cost, both in term of code size and complexity
+- Integration of this feature with other existing and planned features
+- Cost of migrating existing Salt setups (is it a breaking change?)
+- Documentation (would Salt documentation need to be re-organized or altered?)
+
+
+There are tradeoffs to choosing any path. Attempt to identify them here.

README.md

@@ -1,2 +1,151 @@
-# salt-rfc
-Request For Comments
+# Salt RFCs
+
+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 Salt core team.
+
+The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent
+and controlled path for new features to enter the project.
+
+This process is being **actively developed**, and it will still change as more
+features are implemented and the community settles on specific approaches to
+feature development.
+
+## When to follow this process
+
+You should consider using this process if you intend to make "substantial"
+changes to Salt or its documentation. Some examples that would benefit from an
+RFC are:
+
+   - A new feature that creates new API surface area
+   - The removal of features that already shipped
+   - The introduction of new idiomatic usage or conventions
+
+The RFC process is a great opportunity to get more eyeballs on your proposal
+before it becomes a part of a released version of Salt. Quite often, even
+proposals that seem "obvious" can be significantly improved once a wider group
+of interested people have a chance to weigh in.
+
+The RFC process can also be helpful to encourage discussions about a proposed
+feature as it is being designed, and incorporate important constraints into the
+design while it's easier to change, before the design has been fully
+implemented.
+
+Changes that do **NOT** require an RFC:
+
+  - Rephrasing, reorganizing or refactoring
+  - Bug fixes
+  - Addition or removal of warnings
+  - Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other implementors-of-Salt,
+    invisible to users-of-Salt.
+
+## What the process is
+
+In short, to get a major feature added to Salt, one must submit the RFC via
+pull-request. After a comment period, the RFC will be either **Accepted** or
+**Rejected**. An **Accepted** RFC may then be implemented with the goal of
+eventual inclusion into Salt.
+
+## The RFC life-cycle
+The following is a more detailed explanation of the process.
+
+### 1. Proposal
+The RFC is proposed by submitting a pull request to this repo, by copying
+`0000-template.md` and modifying it. If the RFC pertains to any open issues,
+reference them in the **Salt Issue(s)** entry.
+
+When copying the file, do _not_ assign it a number. Simply name the file with a
+short description of the RFC (e.g. `subspace-transport.md`). Once the pull
+request has been opened, a SaltStack core engineer will assign the RFC a number
+and the RFC will enter the initial **Draft** status. At this time, the
+following changes can be made to the RFC file:
+
+1. Add the pull request number to the **RFC PR** entry at the top of the file
+2. Rename the file to include the assigned RFC number, then commit and push to
+   update the pull request
+    ```bash
+    $ git mv subspace-transport.md 0123-subspace-transport.md
+    $ git commit -am 'Assigned RFC number'
+    $ git push origin branchname
+    ```
+
+### 2. Discussion
+The pull request will remain open and serve as the comment thread for the RFC.
+The initial comment period will last no fewer than two (2) weeks, and may be
+extended as deemed necessary based on comment activity.
+
+Once the initial comment period has ended, the RFC will enter **Final Comment**
+status. One (1) week will be allowed for any further comments. At the end of
+the **Final Comment** period, a decision will be made on whether or not to
+accept the RFC. Acceptance requires approval from five (5) members of the core
+development team. As project creator, [Thomas
+Hatch](https://github.com/thatch45) will have a final veto on any RFC.
+
+### 3. Acceptance / Rejection
+At the end of the **Final Comment** stage, the RFC will be either **Accepted**
+or **Rejected**. Either way, the pull request will be merged.
+
+Note that acceptance does not mean that the feature will be immediately
+implemented, or that it will be implemented at all; It merely means that the
+core development team has agreed to it in principle. Additionally, the fact
+that an RFC pull request has been merged does not necessarily mean that the RFC
+has been accepted; pull requests for rejected RFCs are merged so that they are
+visible to others who might otherwise open an RFC for a previously-rejected
+topic.
+
+### 4. Implementation
+An **Accepted** RFC may proceed to be implemented. If no issues on the Salt
+issue tracker are listed under **Salt Issue(s)**, then create one and open a
+pull request to update the RFC with the issue number. All RFCs which have
+reached the implementation step must have at least one associated issue.
+
+We should strive to write each RFC in a way that it will reflect the final
+design of the feature; However, if during implementation things change, the RFC
+document should be updated accordingly.
+
+The RFC author (like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation
+for review after the RFC has been accepted. However, the author of an RFC is
+not obligated to implement it.
+
+If you are interested in working on the implementation for an accepted 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).
+
+## Summary of RFC Statuses
+The below statuses were discussed above:
+- **Draft**: The initial status, from submission through the initial discussion
+  period
+- **Final Comment**: A one-week period after the initial comment period has
+  ended
+- **Accepted**: The RFC has been approved for future implementation
+- **Rejected**: The RFC has been rejected during discussion phase
+
+In additon, RFCs can be assigned the following statuses:
+- **Withdrawn**: The RFC has been voluntarily withdrawn from consideration
+- **Implemented**: The accepted RFC has been implemented
+- **Obsolete**: The accepted RFC is no longer relevant due to other changes in
+  Salt, but should be considered for re-evaluation. The re-evaluation will be
+  done in a separate RFC. Once the new RFC is opened, the **Obsolete** RFC will
+  be considered **Replaced**.
+- **Replaced**: The RFC has been superseded by another RFC
+
+The RFC's status can be viewed in two ways:
+
+1. In the **Status** entry at the top of the RFC file
+2. Via GitHub labels applied to the RFC's pull request
+
+## Reviewing RFCs
+SaltStack staff will post information about open RFCs to the **#rfc** channel
+in the community Slack, as well as our community IRC and mailing list on a
+regular basis to encourage discussion.
+
+**This RFC process owes its inspiration to the [React RFC process], [Yarn RFC
+process], [Rust RFC process], and [Ember RFC process]**
+
+[React RFC process]: https://github.com/reactjs/rfcs
+[Yarn RFC process]: https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs
+[Rust RFC process]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs
+[Ember RFC process]: https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs
+