RFC-NNNN —
Status: Draft | Active | Accepted | Rejected | Withdrawn | Superseded Authors: @github-handle, @github-handle Reviewers: @github-handle (maintainer), @github-handle (sponsor) Comment window: YYYY-MM-DD → YYYY-MM-DD (2 weeks minimum) Related: RFC-XXXX, ADR-YYYY
Summary
One paragraph. The 30-second pitch. If you cannot write the summary in one paragraph, the RFC is not ready for review.
Motivation
What problem does this solve? Who has it? Why now?
Cite evidence: a user request, user research, performance data, a security finding, an upstream standard change. Motivation with no evidence behind it is a flag for reviewers.
Detailed design
The actual proposal — schemas, code signatures, command-line surface, diagrams. This is the section the RFC stands or falls on.
Drawbacks
An honest list of downsides. If you cannot list any, you have not thought hard enough.
Alternatives considered
What else was on the table? Why was each rejected?
Prior art
Has another project solved this? How? What did they get right, and wrong?
Unresolved questions
What does this RFC deliberately leave open for a future RFC?
Adoption / migration plan
If this changes a public surface: how do existing users move? What is the deprecation timeline? Is a tool needed to migrate existing capsules?
Security and threat-model impact
Does this change the threat model? Cite the specific items it touches.
Decision log
A running log of what changed during review — date, author, one-line summary. This is how reviewers track changes without re-reading the full diff.
| Date | Author | Note |
|---|---|---|
| YYYY-MM-DD | @handle | Initial draft |