RFC Workflow Discussion

[mitsuhiko]

This is an experimental repository to see if we can make our DACI process public. Currently we use internal notion documents to track a lot of our decisions. We are an open source company and really there shouldn't be a reason why the majority of these decisions can't be out in the open.

This repository is not yet active and no decisions has been made about this approach. This issue is a meta issue to discuss how we can structure this process so that it's as helpful as possible for all associated parties.

I added 0001-workflow not through a PR and as such I would propose we discuss this item here instead.

[mwarkentin]

@mitsuhiko I linked here from the README as I don't think it was too clear where the discussion was on why we are considering moving here from our existing DACI documents.

I love the idea - I've really enjoyed browsing some of the UK Government's ADRs on their open-source AWS infra repo.

Along those lines it would probably be interesting to port over a bunch of our existing DACI documents.. it would probably help figure out what sort of documentation (if any) is likely to cause challenges with exposing publicly.

[chadwhitacre]

Why is something like #6 an RFC vs. an issue in https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-cocoa? Seems like RFCs should be for cross-cutting or quite complex problems.

[bruno-garcia]

@chadwhitacre the options affect not only the SDK, like ingestion/Relay and we'd like to get more ppl involved. We were going to write a DACI on notion, then the decision to write here came up. Should re revert the PR?

[chadwhitacre]

Ah, okay. Do we want that context about the impact beyond the SDK in the PR or the RFC itself? It's surely obvious to those in the know but I think part of the exercise here with public RFCs is getting better at documenting things in a way that scales beyond small tribal knowledge groups.