{"id":19290806,"url":"https://github.com/lemmynet/rfcs","last_synced_at":"2026-03-01T15:34:42.943Z","repository":{"id":194048981,"uuid":"688897579","full_name":"LemmyNet/rfcs","owner":"LemmyNet","description":"Requests for comment for changes to Lemmy","archived":false,"fork":false,"pushed_at":"2024-02-28T16:36:58.000Z","size":50,"stargazers_count":10,"open_issues_count":6,"forks_count":4,"subscribers_count":5,"default_branch":"main","last_synced_at":"2024-04-14T00:49:24.310Z","etag":null,"topics":[],"latest_commit_sha":null,"homepage":null,"language":null,"has_issues":true,"has_wiki":null,"has_pages":null,"mirror_url":null,"source_name":null,"license":"agpl-3.0","status":null,"scm":"git","pull_requests_enabled":true,"icon_url":"https://github.com/LemmyNet.png","metadata":{"files":{"readme":"README.md","changelog":null,"contributing":null,"funding":null,"license":"LICENSE","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}},"created_at":"2023-09-08T10:36:08.000Z","updated_at":"2023-12-15T19:48:55.000Z","dependencies_parsed_at":"2023-12-24T00:31:10.332Z","dependency_job_id":"bb1e9fcc-cd89-4555-8288-3f5a5c108dc1","html_url":"https://github.com/LemmyNet/rfcs","commit_stats":{"total_commits":5,"total_committers":1,"mean_commits":5.0,"dds":0.0,"last_synced_commit":"ba5df84449cb06714e2ba6cab740062206050ee0"},"previous_names":["lemmynet/rfcs"],"tags_count":0,"template":false,"template_full_name":null,"repository_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/LemmyNet%2Frfcs","tags_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/LemmyNet%2Frfcs/tags","releases_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/LemmyNet%2Frfcs/releases","manifests_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/LemmyNet%2Frfcs/manifests","owner_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/owners/LemmyNet","download_url":"https://codeload.github.com/LemmyNet/rfcs/tar.gz/refs/heads/main","host":{"name":"GitHub","url":"https://github.com","kind":"github","repositories_count":240395746,"owners_count":19794573,"icon_url":"https://github.com/github.png","version":null,"created_at":"2022-05-30T11:31:42.601Z","updated_at":"2022-07-04T15:15:14.044Z","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":[],"created_at":"2024-11-09T22:22:13.155Z","updated_at":"2026-03-01T15:34:42.876Z","avatar_url":"https://github.com/LemmyNet.png","language":null,"funding_links":[],"categories":[],"sub_categories":[],"readme":"# Lemmy RFCs\n\nThe \"RFC\" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent\nand controlled path for changes to Lemmy (such as new features) so that all\nstakeholders can be confident about the direction of the project.\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 Lemmy community.\n\n## Table of Contents\n\n  - [When you need to follow this process]\n  - [Before creating an RFC]\n  - [What the process is]\n  - [The RFC life-cycle]\n  - [Reviewing RFCs]\n  - [Implementing an RFC]\n  - [RFC Postponement]\n  - [Help this is all too informal!]\n  - [License]\n\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\nthe Lemmy backend, or the RFC process itself. What constitutes a\n\"substantial\" change is evolving based on community norms and varies depending\non what part of the ecosystem you are proposing to change, but may include the\nfollowing.\n\n  - Complex new features which cannot be specified adequately in an issue.\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\nIf you submit a pull request to implement a major new feature without going through\nthe RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC first.\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 our [official Zulip server], discussing the topic on our\n[developer discussion forum], and occasionally posting \"pre-RFCs\" on the\ndeveloper forum. You may file issues on this repo for discussion, but these are\nnot actively looked at by the teams.\n\nAs a rule of thumb, receiving encouraging feedback from long-standing project\ndevelopers is a good indication that the RFC is worth pursuing.\n\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 Lemmy, one must first get the RFC\nmerged into the RFC repository as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is\n\"active\" and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Lemmy.\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; This is going to be the PR\n    number and we'll rename the file accordingly if the RFC is accepted.\n  - Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: RFCs that do not present\n    convincing motivation, demonstrate lack of understanding of the design's\n    impact, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or alternatives tend to\n    be 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  - Now that your RFC has an open pull request, use the issue number of the PR\n    to update your `0000-` prefix to that number. \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  - Maintainers 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 maintainer 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      maintainers are 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. Maintainers use their best judgment\n      in taking this step, and the FCP itself ensures there is ample time and\n      notification for stakeholders to push back 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* maintainers must sign off;\n      this is often the point at which many maintainers first review the\n      RFC 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 [/c/lemmy](https://lemmy.ml/c/lemmy). 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## The RFC life-cycle\n[The RFC life-cycle]: #the-rfc-life-cycle\n\nOnce an RFC becomes \"active\" then authors may implement it and submit the\nfeature as a pull request to the Lemmy repo. Being \"active\" is not a rubber\nstamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be\nmerged; it does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed\nto the feature and are amenable to merging it.\n\nFurthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is \"active\"\nimplies nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor does\nit imply anything about whether a Lemmy 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 \"active\" RFCs can be done in follow-up pull requests. We\nstrive 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. Only very\nminor changes should be submitted as amendments. More substantial changes\nshould be new RFCs, with a note added to the original RFC. Exactly what counts\nas a \"very minor change\" is up to the maintainers to decide.\n\n\n## Reviewing RFCs\n[Reviewing RFCs]: #reviewing-rfcs\n\nWhile the RFC pull request is up, maintainers 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 in maintainer chat. In either\ncase a summary from the meeting will be posted back to the RFC pull request.\n\nMaintainers make a final decisions about RFCs after the benefits and drawbacks\nare well understood. These decisions can be made at any time, but the maintainers\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 maintainers will add a comment describing the\nrationale for the decision.\n\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 Lemmy repository; thus that\nassociated issue can be assigned a priority via the triage process that the\nteam uses for all issues in the Lemmy 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.\n\nIf you are interested in working on the implementation for an \"active\" 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\n\n## RFC Postponement\n[RFC Postponement]: #rfc-postponement\n\nSome RFC pull requests are tagged with the \"postponed\" label when they are\nclosed (as part of the rejection process). An RFC closed with \"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. Historically,\n\"postponed\" was used to postpone features until after 1.0. Postponed pull\nrequests may be re-opened when the time is right. We don't have any formal\nprocess for that, you should ask the maintainers.\n\nUsually an RFC pull request marked as \"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\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\n## License\n[License]: #license\n\nThis repository is licensed under [AGPL](LICENSE).\n","project_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2Flemmynet%2Frfcs","html_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/projects/github.com%2Flemmynet%2Frfcs","lists_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2Flemmynet%2Frfcs/lists"}