rfc(informational): RBAC at Sentry

README.md

@@ -28,3 +28,4 @@ This repository contains RFCs and DACIs. Lost?
 - [0047-introduce-profile-context](text/0047-introduce-profile-context.md): Add Profile Context
 - [0048-move-replayid-out-of-tags](text/0048-move-replayid-out-of-tags.md): Plan to replace freight with GoCD
 * [0043-instruction-addr-adjustment](text/0043-instruction-addr-adjustment.md): new StackTrace Protocol field that controls adjustment of the `instruction_addr` for symbolication
+- [0066-rbac-at-sentry](text/0066-rbac-at-sentry.md): RBAC at Sentry

text/0066-rbac-at-sentry.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+- Start Date: 2023-01-23
+- RFC Type: informational
+- RFC PR: https://github.com/getsentry/rfcs/pull/66
+- RFC Status: draft
+
+# Summary
+
+One paragraph explanation of the feature or document purpose.
+
+# Motivation
+
+Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome?
+
+# Background
+
+The reason this decision or document is required. This section might not always exist.
+
+# Supporting Data
+
+[Metrics to help support your decision (if applicable).]
+
+# Options Considered
+
+If an RFC does not know yet what the options are, it can propose multiple options. The
+preferred model is to propose one option and to provide alternatives.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Why should we not do this? What are the drawbacks of this RFC or a particular option if
+multiple options are presented.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through this RFC?
+- What issues are out of scope for this RFC but are known?