doc: introduce RFC process

Refs: nodejs/TSC#962

doc/rfcs/00000-rfc-process.md

@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+# RFC: RFC process
+
+The request for comments (RFC) process is intended to provide a consistent and
+controlled path for new features to enter Node.js. The process helps find
+consensus among Node.js community and collaborators on substantial changes to
+the runtime.
+
+## Motivation
+
+Attempting to contribute substantial features to Node.js can result in
+interminable, chaotic, and repetitive conversations with no clear resolution and
+no realistic process for resolution. The intention of this proposal is to
+provide a clearer process.
+
+Examples that may have benefited from an RFC process:
+
+* [Implement window.fetch into core][]
+
+## Guide-level explanation
+
+You need to follow this process if you intend to make substantial changes to the
+Node.js runtime. Substantial changes include:
+
+* Semantic or syntactic changes to Node.js that are not bugfixes.
+* Removing stable Node.js features.
+* New modules.
+* Bundling of new executables or removal of existing bundled executables.
+
+Changes that do not require an RFC are changes that do not meet the preceding
+criteria. These might include:
+
+* Rephrasing text or reorganizing documentation.
+* Refactoring code.
+* Bugfixes.
+* Changes that improve performance benchmarks.
+* Additions that only affect core developers and not end users.
+
+If you submit a pull request to implement a new feature without going through
+the RFC process, it might be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC
+first.
+
+## Reference-level explanation
+
+To get a substantial feature added to Node.js, first get the RFC merged into the
+`rfcs` directory as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is _accepted_ and may
+be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Node.js.
+
+* Fork the RFC repo <https://github.com/nodejs/node>
+* Copy `doc/rfcs/00000-template.md` to `doc/rfcs/00000-my-feature.md` where
+  `my-feature` is descriptive. Don't assign an RFC number yet.
+* Fill in the RFC.
+* Submit a pull request. The pull request is where we get review of the
+design from the larger community.
+* Once the pull request is opened, the submitter or a core team collaborator
+  should:
+  * Update the RFC file name to change `00000` to the pull request identifier.
+  * Update `doc/rfcs/README.md` in the pull request to include the RFC in the
+    [Accepted RFCs list][].
+* Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are much
+more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments.
+
+Eventually, one of the [Node.js core team collaborators][] will either accept
+the RFC by merging the pull request, at which point the RFC is accepted, or
+reject it by closing the pull request.
+
+Once an RFC becomes active then authors may implement it and submit the
+feature as a pull request to the Node.js repository. _Active_ is not a rubber
+stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be
+merged. It does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed to
+the feature and are amenable to merging it.
+
+Modifications to active RFCs can be done in subsequent PRs. An RFC that makes it
+through the entire process to implementation is _complete_ and is removed from
+the [Accepted RFCs List][].
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+* This approach means a formal process for substantial features where we do not
+  currently have one. This could be seen as an advantage rather than drawback,
+  Nonetheless, all else being equal, it is desirable to have less process. In an
+  attempt to address this drawback, this proposal attempts a lightweight
+  approach.
+
+## Rationale and alternatives
+
+The current process has resulted in a number of stalemates that have taken a
+toll on participants. It works well for bugfixes but not as well for big new
+features. Defining a process and reconsidering out decision-making process may
+avoid the problem, in the words of one contributor, of "Good ideas die because
+people can't agree on a parameter name."
+
+Alternatives include:
+
+* The _status quo_ may not be ideal, but perhaps it works well enough, or better
+  than alternatives can be expected to work.
+* We could consider a more traditional heavyweight RFC process. There do not
+  appear to be any advocates whatsoever for such a thing.
+* Instead (or in addition) to an RFC process, we could choose to expand and
+  improve the Working Group (WG) model. This (arguably) worked well for ES
+  modules. It is, however, harder to imagine it working well for deciding
+  whether to implement fetch in Node.js core or whether to bundle package
+  managers other than `npm`.
+
+## Prior art
+
+* [Node.js enhancement proposals][]
+  * Only a few people wrote enhancement proposals (EPs). A bigger problem may
+    have been that only a few people read them. One lesson this proposal tries
+    to take from issues with the EP process is that the RFCs need to be visible.
+    In general, Node.js information is overly siloed. Rather than placed in a
+    separate repository, RFCs will live in the main Node.js core repository.
+  * Because the process was, in effect, not mandatory, there were not a lot of
+    examples by core team members showing what a good RFC and RFC process look
+    like.
+* [Rust RFC process][]
+  * This is largely what this proposal is modeled on.
+* [Python Enhancement Proposals][]
+  * This is a more detailed (and thus heavyweight) model than what is proposed
+    here.
+* [Any interest in an RFC process?][]
+  * This TSC issue is what prompted this proposal. It contains more details
+    about some background information that is summarized more briefly in this
+    proposal.
+
+## Unresolved questions
+
+* This process should be implemented on a trial basis. What is the appropriate
+  time period to evaluate how the RFC process is working? What is the process
+  for that evaluation? How do we make changes or revoke the process? (TSC
+  decision?)
+* Should RFCs (and other things perhaps) be consent-based rather than
+  consensus-based?
+* Should RFC discussions be time-boxed? Getting to "no" faster would be good.
+  It's not that the RFC process should lead to success all the time or even
+  necessarily most of the time. It's that it should never lead to a years-long
+  process which never arrives at a clear resolution one way or the other.
+* Should opening a pull request with a minimal implementation could be part of
+  the process? This would fail to separate idea from implementation, but it
+  would help people who feel they can't determine much with certainty until they
+  see how it will be work in practice. (I'm hopeful that the emphasis on
+  examples in the template will meet that need.)
+* How will this affect velocity? Is that a concern or out of scope?
+
+[Accepted RFCs list]: ./README.md#accepted-rfcs-list
+[Any interest in an RFC process?]: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/962
+[Implement window.fetch into core]: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/962
+[Node.js core team collaborators]: ../../README.md#collaborators
+[Node.js enhancement proposals]: https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps
+[Python Enhancement Proposals]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/
+[Rust RFC process]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/HEAD/text/0002-rfc-process.md

doc/rfcs/00000-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# RFC: (name of feature)
+
+One paragraph explanation of the feature.
+
+## Motivation
+
+Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected
+outcome?
+
+## Guide-level explanation
+
+Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the language and you were
+teaching it to another Node.js user.
+
+* Introduce new named concepts.
+* Explain the feature largely in terms of examples.
+* Explain how Node.js users should think about the feature and how it might
+  impact the way they use Node.js. It should explain the impact as concretely as
+  possible.
+* If applicable, provide sample error messages, deprecation warnings, or
+  migration guidance.
+
+## Reference-level explanation
+
+This is the technical portion of the RFC. Explain the design in detail.
+
+* Explain its interaction with other features.
+* Explain how the would be implemented.
+* Explain edge cases with examples.
+
+The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and
+explain more fully how the detailed proposal makes those examples work.
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+Why might we *not* do this?
+
+## Rationale and alternatives
+
+The goal here is *not* be to promote the proposal by presenting it as
+favorably as possible. The goal is to explore options fairly and completely.
+
+* Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs?
+* What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not
+  choosing them?
+* What is the impact of not doing this?
+
+## Prior art
+
+Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal.
+
+* Does this feature exist in other programming languages? What experiences have
+  their communities had and what lessons can we learn from them?
+* Are there any published papers, great posts, or other references that discuss
+  this?
+
+## Unresolved questions
+
+* Perhaps you care about a particular feature, but do not have a specific
+  proposal around certain details. This is the place to list those unresolved
+  questions.
+* What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be
+  addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this
+  RFC?

doc/rfcs/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+# Node.js Core RFCs
+
+The request for comments (RFC) process is intended to provide a consistent and
+controlled path for new features to enter Node.js. The process helps find
+consensus among Node.js community and collaborators on substantial changes to
+the runtime.
+
+## Accepted RFCs list
+
+There are no accepted RFCs yet.
+
+## When you need to follow this process
+
+You need to follow this process if you intend to make substantial changes to the
+Node.js runtime. Substantial changes include:
+
+* Semantic or syntactic changes to Node.js that are not bugfixes.
+* Removing stable Node.js features.
+* New modules.
+* Bundling of new executables or removal of existing bundled executables.
+
+Changes that do not require an RFC are changes that do not meet the preceding
+criteria. These might include:
+
+* Rephrasing text or reorganizing documentation.
+* Refactoring code.
+* Bugfixes.
+* Changes that improve performance benchmarks.
+* Additions that only affect core developers and not end users.
+
+If you submit a pull request to implement a new feature without going through
+the RFC process, it might be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC
+first.
+
+## What the process is
+
+To get a substantial feature added to Node.js, first get the RFC merged into the
+`rfcs` directory as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is _accepted_ and may
+be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Node.js.
+
+* Fork the RFC repo <https://github.com/nodejs/node>
+* Copy `doc/rfcs/00000-template.md` to `doc/rfcs/00000-my-feature.md` where
+  `my-feature` is descriptive. Don't assign an RFC number yet.
+* Fill in the RFC.
+* Submit a pull request. The pull request is where we get review of the
+design from the larger community.
+* Once the pull request is opened, the submitter or a core team collaborator
+  should:
+  * Update the RFC file name to change `00000` to the pull request identifier.
+  * Update `doc/rfcs/README.md` in the pull request to include the RFC in the
+    [Accepted RFCs list][].
+* Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are much
+more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments.
+
+Eventually, one of the [Node.js core team collaborators][] will either accept
+the RFC by merging the pull request, at which point the RFC is accepted, or
+reject it by closing the pull request.
+
+Once an RFC becomes active then authors may implement it and submit the
+feature as a pull request to the Node.js repository. _Active_ is not a rubber
+stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be
+merged. It does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed to
+the feature and are amenable to merging it.
+
+Modifications to active RFCs can be done in subsequent PRs. An RFC that makes it
+through the entire process to implementation is _complete_ and is removed from
+the [Accepted RFCs List][].
+
+## What the process tries to achieve
+
+* Discourage unactionable or vague feature requests.
+* Ensure that all serious RFCs are considered equally.
+* Give confidence to those with a stake in Node.js development that they
+  understand why new features are being merged.
+
+## Acknowledgments
+
+The initial proposal for this process is inspired by, modeled on, and partially
+copied from the [Rust RFC process][]
+
+[Accepted RFCs list]: #accepted-rfcs-list
+[Node.js core team collaborators]: ../../README.md#collaborators
+[Rust RFC process]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/HEAD/text/0002-rfc-process.md