rfcs

NoteDue to the decreased activity in the RFC repository, and as also discussed in the previous meeting notes, we will transition the RFC process to a new on-demand work flow. More info here. Nix RFCs (Request For Comments) 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 Nix community. When this process is followed This process is followed when one intends to make "substantial" changes to the Nix ecosystem. What constitutes a "substantial" change is evolving based on community norms, but may include the following. Any semantic or syntactic change to the language that is not a bug fix Removing language features Big restructuring of Nixpkgs Expansions to the scope of Nixpkgs (new arch, major subprojects, ...) Introduction of new interfaces or functions 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. Terminology RFC Steering Committee A team of people defined by RFC 36 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 responsibility 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 responsibility 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 rfcs directory. At that point the RFC is accepted and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Nix or Nixpkgs. graph TD Start((Start)) --> Draft Draft -->|Ready for Review| Discuss style Draft fill:#008,color:#FFF Discuss[Discuss and Refine] Discuss ---> |On Hold| Draft Discuss --> |Can't Find Shepherds| NoShepherds Discuss --> |Motion for FCP| FCP NoShepherds[Closed - Lack of Interest]:::closed NoShepherds --> |Renewed Interest| Discuss FCP[Final Comment Phase] FCP --> |FCP Canceled| Discuss FCP --> |Accept| Merged FCP --> |Reject| Rejected Merged style Merged fill:#080,color:#FFF Rejected[Closed - Rejected]:::closed Withdrawn[Closed - Withdrawn]:::closed Discuss & Draft --->|Author Withdraws| Withdrawn classDef closed fill:#800,color:#FFF Loading Have a cool idea! 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. Consider using Semantic Line Breaks in order to get better diffs on later amendments. Consider publishing your RFC as pre-RFC in the forum to gather initial feedback and iron out the remaining typos. 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. 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. 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. 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 unanim