Hi Geode Devs, First of all, Udo, thanks for your proposal. I am all up for what you are aiming at: "better round out each RFC. Causing less delays later in the process and allowing all community members to actively participate in the review process regardless of technical skill level."
Secondly, I think I am to blame for having given two little time to review the latest RFC I have published. I apologize for it. I felt the changes were too small, assumed that the solution was not problematic and as a result gave less than a week to review which I now think is too little even if the RFC content was small. This has probably triggered Udo's proposal so, in a way, it has not been such a bad thing đ. Regarding the concrete proposal to achieve the goal, I think the 2 week minimum period is very reasonable. The new use case section may help to have more community members actively participating but I am not sure that it will be the definitive measure. I feel that sometimes the lack of participation comes from lack of time because we're busy with other things and not so much with how the RFC proposal has been written. Anyhow, having an example of what this new section should look like would be helpful for new RFCs to be written. Alberto ________________________________ From: Udo Kohlmeyer <u...@vmware.com> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 10:18 PM To: geode <dev@geode.apache.org> Subject: [Proposal] - RFC etiquette Hi there Geode Dev's I would like to propose the following changes to the RFC process that we have in place at the moment. 1. All submitted RFCâs will provide a minimum 2 week review period. This is to allow the community to review the RFC in a reasonable timeframe. If we rush things, we will miss things. Iâd rather have a little more time spent on the RFC review and getting the approach âcorrectâ than rushing the RFC and then at a later point in time (either at PR review or worse production issue) find out that the approach was less than optimal. 2. Add a new section to the RFC. I would like to propose this section to be labelled âUse Casesâ. In this section I would like all submitters to describe the use case that this RFC is to fulfill. This would include all possible combinations (success and failure) and expected outcomes of each. I hope with the additions to the RFC process and template we can better round out each RFC. Causing less delays later in the process and allowing all community members to actively participate in the review process regardless of technical skill level. Thoughts or comments? âUdo
