{"id":19330026,"url":"https://github.com/amethyst/rfcs","last_synced_at":"2026-03-01T15:35:15.784Z","repository":{"id":66204270,"uuid":"154931504","full_name":"amethyst/rfcs","owner":"amethyst","description":"RFCs are documents that contain major plans and decisions for the engine","archived":false,"fork":false,"pushed_at":"2020-04-30T17:43:13.000Z","size":51,"stargazers_count":32,"open_issues_count":15,"forks_count":10,"subscribers_count":21,"default_branch":"master","last_synced_at":"2026-02-20T03:40:43.769Z","etag":null,"topics":["amethyst","game-engine","rfcs"],"latest_commit_sha":null,"homepage":null,"language":null,"has_issues":true,"has_wiki":null,"has_pages":null,"mirror_url":null,"source_name":null,"license":"apache-2.0","status":null,"scm":"git","pull_requests_enabled":true,"icon_url":"https://github.com/amethyst.png","metadata":{"files":{"readme":"README.md","changelog":null,"contributing":null,"funding":null,"license":"LICENSE-APACHE","code_of_conduct":null,"threat_model":null,"audit":null,"citation":null,"codeowners":null,"security":null,"support":null,"governance":null,"roadmap":null,"authors":null,"dei":null,"publiccode":null,"codemeta":null}},"created_at":"2018-10-27T05:58:47.000Z","updated_at":"2023-08-22T17:27:19.000Z","dependencies_parsed_at":null,"dependency_job_id":"c3f53e1f-484a-42a5-b13a-35fe5a583c9b","html_url":"https://github.com/amethyst/rfcs","commit_stats":null,"previous_names":[],"tags_count":0,"template":false,"template_full_name":null,"purl":"pkg:github/amethyst/rfcs","repository_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/amethyst%2Frfcs","tags_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/amethyst%2Frfcs/tags","releases_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/amethyst%2Frfcs/releases","manifests_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/amethyst%2Frfcs/manifests","owner_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/owners/amethyst","download_url":"https://codeload.github.com/amethyst/rfcs/tar.gz/refs/heads/master","sbom_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/amethyst%2Frfcs/sbom","scorecard":null,"host":{"name":"GitHub","url":"https://github.com","kind":"github","repositories_count":286080680,"owners_count":29973333,"icon_url":"https://github.com/github.png","version":null,"created_at":"2022-05-30T11:31:42.601Z","updated_at":"2026-03-01T15:29:09.406Z","status":"ssl_error","status_checked_at":"2026-03-01T15:28:28.558Z","response_time":124,"last_error":"SSL_connect returned=1 errno=0 peeraddr=140.82.121.5:443 state=error: unexpected eof while reading","robots_txt_status":"success","robots_txt_updated_at":"2025-07-24T06:49:26.215Z","robots_txt_url":"https://github.com/robots.txt","online":false,"can_crawl_api":true,"host_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub","repositories_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories","repository_names_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repository_names","owners_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/owners"}},"keywords":["amethyst","game-engine","rfcs"],"created_at":"2024-11-10T02:33:25.559Z","updated_at":"2026-03-01T15:35:15.749Z","avatar_url":"https://github.com/amethyst.png","language":null,"funding_links":[],"categories":[],"sub_categories":[],"readme":"# Amethyst RFCs\n[Amethyst RFCs]: #amethyst-rfcs\n\n- [Discussing RFCs](https://github.com/amethyst/rfcs/pulls)\n- [Accepted RFCs](https://github.com/amethyst/rfcs/tree/master)\n- [RFCs Awaiting Implementation](https://github.com/amethyst/rfcs/issues?utf8=✓\u0026q=label%3A%22RFC%3A+Accepted%22+-label%3A%22Status%3A+Working%22+)\n\n## Opening\n[Opening]: #opening\n\nMany changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be\nimplemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.\n\nSome changes though are 'substantial', and we ask that these be put through a\nbit of a design process and produce a consensus among the Amethyst community and\nthe [sub-team]s.\n\nThe \"Request for Comments\" (RFC) process is intended to provide a consistent\nand controlled path for new features to enter the engine and associated\nlibraries, so that all stakeholders can be confident about the direction in which\nthe engine is evolving.\n\nYou may join our [Discord here](https://discord.gg/amethyst) and the [Amethyst Community Forum](https://community.amethyst-engine.org) here: https://community.amethyst-engine.org.\n\n## Table of Contents\n[Table of Contents]: #table-of-contents\n\n- [Opening]\n- [Table of Contents](#table-of-contents)\n- [When you need to follow this process](#when-you-need-to-follow-this-process)\n  - [Sub-team Specific Guidelines](#sub-team-specific-guidelines)\n- [Before creating an RFC](#before-creating-an-rfc)\n- [What the process is](#what-the-process-is)\n- [Tracking Issues](#tracking-issues)\n  - [Labels and Tags](#labels-and-tags)\n- [The RFC life-cycle](#the-rfc-life-cycle)\n  - [Reviewing RFCs](#reviewing-rfcs)\n  - [Implementing an RFC](#implementing-an-rfc)\n  - [RFC Postponement](#rfc-postponement)\n- [Help this is all too informal!](#help-this-is-all-too-informal)\n- [License](#license)\n\n## When you need to follow this process\n[When you need to follow this process]: #when-you-need-to-follow-this-process\n\nYou need to follow this process if you intend to make \"substantial\" changes to\nAmethyst, its component crates, or the RFC process itself. The definition of substantial\nis somewhat fluid, and to an extent set by the community. Some examples might include:\n\n- A change to a different crate used for physics calculations\n- Changes to how the editor communicates with the engine\n- Significant protocol changes to the networking library\n- Anything that has the potential to produce a substantial negative impact on users\n\nSome changes do not require an RFC:\n\n- Rephrasing, reorganizing, refactoring, or otherwise \"changing shape does\n  not change meaning\".\n- Additions that strictly improve objective, numerical quality criteria\n  (warning removal, speedup, better platform coverage, more parallelism, trap\n  more errors, etc.)\n- Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other developers-of-amethyst,\n  invisible to users-of-amethyst.\n- More tests and benchmarks.\n- Convenience functions or quality of life improvements that do not affect\n  current functionality or backwards compatibility.\n\nIf you submit a pull request that ends up being generating a lot of discussion or\npushback, you may be asked to submit an RFC. What seems to be a minor change can\nhave unintended consequences other teams might see.\n\n### Sub-team specific guidelines\n[Sub-team specific guidelines]: #sub-team-specific-guidelines\n\nFor more details on when an RFC is required for the following areas, please see \nthe Amethyst community's [sub-team] specific guidelines for:\n\n- [Networking changes](net_changes.md)\n- [Renderer changes](rend_changes.md)\n- [Engine changes](engine_changes.md)\n- [Web changes](web_changes.md)\n\n## Before creating an RFC\n[Before creating an RFC]: #before-creating-an-rfc\n\nA hastily-proposed RFC can hurt its chances of acceptance. Low quality\nproposals, proposals for previously-rejected features, or those that don't fit\ninto the near-term roadmap, may be quickly rejected, which can be demotivating\nfor the unprepared contributor. Laying some groundwork ahead of the RFC can\nmake the process smoother.\n\nAlthough there is no single way to prepare for submitting an RFC, it is\ngenerally a good idea to pursue feedback from other project developers\nbeforehand, to ascertain that the RFC may be desirable; having a consistent\nimpact on the project requires concerted effort toward consensus-building.\n\nThe most common preparations for writing and submitting an RFC include talking\nthe idea over on the [Discord channel](https://discord.gg/dqe9UYE), specifically\nwith the applicable sub-team and discussing it on our [Amethyst Community Forums](https://community.amethyst-engine.org)\n\nWe welcome all ideas and strive to provide kind but useful feedback. While not\nevery proposal will make it through, that should in no way discourage anyone\nfrom continuing to make proposals in the future.\n\nIf the proposal is promising and someone is new to the RFC process, we will\ndo our best to find someone to mentor them through the process.\n\n## What the process is\n[What the process is]: #what-the-process-is\n\nIn short, to get a major feature added to Amethyst, one must first get the RFC\nmerged into the RFC repository as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is\napproved and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Amethyst.\n\n- Fork the RFC repo [RFC repository]\n- Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md` (where \"my-feature\" is\n  descriptive. Don't assign an RFC number yet).\n- Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: RFCs that do not present\n  convincing motivation, demonstrate understanding of the impact of the\n  design, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or alternatives tend to be\n  poorly-received.\n- Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design\n  feedback from the larger community, and the author should be prepared to\n  revise it in response.\n- Each pull request will be labeled with the most relevant [sub-team], which\n  will lead to its being triaged by that team in a future meeting and assigned\n  to a member of the subteam.\n- Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are\n  much more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any\n  comments. Feel free to reach out to the RFC assignee in particular to get\n  help identifying stakeholders and obstacles.\n- The sub-team will discuss the RFC pull request, as much as possible in the\n  comment thread of the pull request itself. Offline discussion will be\n  summarized on the pull request comment thread.\n- RFCs rarely go through this process unchanged, especially as alternatives\n  and drawbacks are shown. You can make edits, big and small, to the RFC to\n  clarify or change the design, but make changes as new commits to the pull\n  request, and leave a comment on the pull request explaining your changes.\n  *Specifically, do not squash or rebase commits after they are visible on the\n  pull request.*\n- At some point, a member of the subteam will propose a \"motion for final\n  comment period\" (FCP), along with a *disposition* for the RFC (merge, close,\n  or postpone).\n  - This step is taken when enough of the tradeoffs have been discussed that\n  the subteam is in a position to make a decision. That does not require\n  consensus amongst all participants in the RFC thread (which is usually\n  impossible). However, the argument supporting the disposition on the RFC\n  needs to have already been clearly articulated, and there should not be a\n  strong consensus *against* that position outside of the subteam. Subteam\n  members use their best judgment in taking this step, and the FCP itself\n  ensures there is ample time and notification for stakeholders to push back\n  if it is made prematurely.\n  - For RFCs with lengthy discussion, the motion to FCP is usually preceded by\n    a *summary comment* trying to lay out the current state of the discussion\n    and major tradeoffs/points of disagreement.\n  - Before actually entering FCP, *all* members of the subteam must sign off;\n  this is often the point at which many subteam members first review the RFC\n  in full depth.\n- The FCP lasts ten calendar days, so that it is open for at least 5 business\n  days. It is also advertised widely,\n  e.g. in [This Week in Amethyst](https://amethyst.rs/blog). This way all\n  stakeholders have a chance to lodge any final objections before a decision\n  is reached.\n- In most cases, the FCP period is quiet, and the RFC is either merged or\n  closed. However, sometimes substantial new arguments or ideas are raised,\n  the FCP is canceled, and the RFC goes back into development mode.\n\n## Tracking Issues\n[tracking-issues]: #tracking-issues\nThese are issues created on GitHub that track the implementation progress of the RFC.\nThey link to related issues, have checkboxes, or other structures that make them more\nof a meta-issue than an issue for adding a specific feature or fixing a bug.\n\nThis issue is one the sub-team will create, not one you need to create.\n\n## Labels and Tags\n[labels-tags]: #labels-and-tags\n\nWe use the following tags for RFC tracking issues:\n\n- RFC: Proposed\n- RFC: Accepted\n- RFC: Declined\n- RFC: Complete\n- RFC: Postponed\n\nSee the life-cycle section below for details on what these mean.\n\n## The RFC life-cycle\n[The RFC life-cycle]: #the-rfc-life-cycle\n\nWhen an RFC is first created, a tracking issue is created and given the label\n\"RFC: Proposed\".\n\nOnce an RFC becomes approved, the tracking issue will be tagged with the label\n\"RFC: Accepted\". Authors may implement it and submit the feature as a pull\nrequest to the Amethyst repo. Being approved is not a rubber stamp, and in\nparticular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be merged; it\ndoes mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed to the\nfeature and are amenable to merging it.\n\nFurthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is approved\nimplies nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor does\nit imply anything about whether an Amethyst developer has been assigned the task of\nimplementing the feature. While it is not *necessary* that the author of the\nRFC also write the implementation, it is by far the most effective way to see\nan RFC through to completion: authors should not expect that other project\ndevelopers will take on responsibility for implementing their accepted feature.\n\nModifications to approved RFCs can be done in follow-up pull requests. In\norder for a PR that deviates from the RFC standard, a new RFC that follows\nthe accepted guidelines should be written and contain a link to the prior version.\n\nWe strive to write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of\nthe feature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every\nmerged RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at the time of the\nnext major release.\n\nIn general, once accepted, RFCs should not be substantially changed. They should\nbe as detailed as possible so that only very minor changes are needed as amendments.\nMore substantial changes should be new RFCs, with a note added to the original RFC.\nExactly what counts as a \"very minor change\" is up to the sub-team to decide; check\n[Sub-team specific guidelines] for more details.\n\n### Reviewing RFCs\n[Reviewing RFCs]: #reviewing-rfcs\n\nWhile the RFC pull request is up, the sub-team may schedule meetings with the\nauthor and/or relevant stakeholders to discuss the issues in greater detail,\nand in some cases the topic may be discussed at a sub-team meeting. In either\ncase a summary from the meeting will be posted back to the RFC pull request.\n\nA sub-team makes final decisions about RFCs after the benefits and drawbacks\nare well understood. These decisions can be made at any time, but the sub-team\nwill regularly issue decisions. When a decision is made, the RFC pull request\nwill either be merged or closed. In either case, if the reasoning is not clear\nfrom the discussion in thread, the sub-team will add a comment describing the\nrationale for the decision. In the case of the RFC being closed, the tag\n\"RFC: Declined\" will be added to the tracking issue. If it is merged, it will\nreceive the tag \"RFC: Accepted\".\n\n### Implementing an RFC\n[Implementing an RFC]: #implementing-an-rfc\n\nSome accepted RFCs represent vital features that need to be implemented right\naway. Other accepted RFCs can represent features that can wait until some\narbitrary developer feels like doing the work. Every accepted RFC has an\nassociated issue tracking its implementation in the Amethyst repository; thus that\nassociated issue can be assigned a priority via the triage process that the\nteam uses for all issues in the Amethyst repository.\n\nThe author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC\nauthor (like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation for\nreview after the RFC has been accepted. A prototype or other supporting\nmaterials (data flow diagrams, architecture diagrams, aggregations of\nposts from the community) can all help demonstrate the need and the\npriority of the RFC.\n\nIf you are interested in working on the implementation for an approved RFC, but\ncannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask\n(e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue).\n\nOnce an RFC has been implemented, the tracking issue will be closed and given\nthe label \"RFC: Complete\".\n\n### RFC Postponement\n[RFC Postponement]: #rfc-postponement\n\nSome RFC pull requests are tagged with the \"RFC: Postponed\" label when they are\nclosed (as part of the rejection process). An RFC closed with \"RFC: Postponed\" is\nmarked as such because we want neither to think about evaluating the proposal\nnor about implementing the described feature until some time in the future, and\nwe believe that we can afford to wait until then to do so. Postponed pull\nrequests may be re-opened when the time is right. We don't have any formal\nprocess for that, you should ask members of the relevant sub-team.\n\nUsually an RFC pull request marked as \"RFC: Postponed\" has already passed an\ninformal first round of evaluation, namely the round of \"do we think we would\never possibly consider making this change, as outlined in the RFC pull request,\nor some semi-obvious variation of it.\" (When the answer to the latter question\nis \"no\", then the appropriate response is to close the RFC, not postpone it.)\n\n### Help! This is all too informal\n[Help this is all too informal!]: #help-this-is-all-too-informal\n\nThe process is intended to be as lightweight as reasonable for the present\ncircumstances. As usual, we are trying to let the process be driven by\nconsensus and community norms, not impose more structure than necessary.\n\n[Amethyst Community Forums](https://community.amethyst-engine.org)\n\n## License\n[License]: #license\n\nAll code in repositories under the amethyst/ organization is Apache 2.0 or MIT\nlicensed while all assets are Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licensed if not otherwise stated.\n\n- Apache License, Version 2.0, ([LICENSE-APACHE](LICENSE-APACHE) or http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)\n- MIT license ([LICENSE-MIT](LICENSE-MIT) or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)\n- CC BY-SA 4.0 ([LICENSE-CCBYSA](LICENSE-CCBYSA) or https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)\n\n### Contributions\n\nUnless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted\nfor inclusion in the work by you, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, shall be\ndual licensed as above, without any additional terms or conditions.\n","project_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2Famethyst%2Frfcs","html_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/projects/github.com%2Famethyst%2Frfcs","lists_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2Famethyst%2Frfcs/lists"}