{"id":20783758,"url":"https://github.com/obsproject/rfcs","last_synced_at":"2025-03-11T23:16:41.192Z","repository":{"id":35852926,"uuid":"218626109","full_name":"obsproject/rfcs","owner":"obsproject","description":"RFCs for changes to OBS Studio (and supporting toolset)","archived":false,"fork":false,"pushed_at":"2024-03-31T11:14:40.000Z","size":101,"stargazers_count":110,"open_issues_count":17,"forks_count":45,"subscribers_count":33,"default_branch":"master","last_synced_at":"2024-04-14T05:09:49.410Z","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":null,"status":null,"scm":"git","pull_requests_enabled":true,"icon_url":"https://github.com/obsproject.png","metadata":{"files":{"readme":"README.md","changelog":null,"contributing":null,"funding":null,"license":null,"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":"2019-10-30T21:02:30.000Z","updated_at":"2024-04-16T12:44:46.024Z","dependencies_parsed_at":"2023-09-24T03:28:46.720Z","dependency_job_id":"569c3e9f-fdab-4dae-af9f-0ded5700009f","html_url":"https://github.com/obsproject/rfcs","commit_stats":{"total_commits":21,"total_committers":16,"mean_commits":1.3125,"dds":0.7619047619047619,"last_synced_commit":"d767e2495c6f3ad8ed3a87d6cb49655ee7534b2d"},"previous_names":[],"tags_count":0,"template":false,"template_full_name":null,"repository_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/obsproject%2Frfcs","tags_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/obsproject%2Frfcs/tags","releases_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/obsproject%2Frfcs/releases","manifests_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/obsproject%2Frfcs/manifests","owner_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/owners/obsproject","download_url":"https://codeload.github.com/obsproject/rfcs/tar.gz/refs/heads/master","host":{"name":"GitHub","url":"https://github.com","kind":"github","repositories_count":243125564,"owners_count":20240276,"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":"2024-11-17T14:23:31.107Z","updated_at":"2025-03-11T23:16:41.161Z","avatar_url":"https://github.com/obsproject.png","language":null,"funding_links":[],"categories":[],"sub_categories":[],"readme":"# OBS Project RFCs\n\n[OBS Project RFCs]: #obs-project-rfcs\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 OBS Project\ncommunity.\n\nThe \"RFC\" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent\nand controlled path for new features, functionality, and changes to undergo\na peer-review and allow all interested parties to weigh in their comments\nand ensure the direction is consistent with the vision of the project.\n\n\n## Table of Contents\n[Table of Contents]: #table-of-contents\n\n  - [Opening](#obs-project-rfcs)\n  - [Table of Contents]\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\nOBS Studio, obs-browser, or any of the other plugins/modules. 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  - Entirely new features/functionality that are not currently available\n  - Major changes to existing features, or requests to redesign those features\n  - Changes to the internal engineering design of any part of the program\n  - Things that drastically change the end-user experience, both from a\n    workflow and UX perspective.\n  - Changes to API, ABI, or settings storage format of the program\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, and are\n    invisible to end users.\n  - rtmp-service updates\n\nIf you submit a pull request to implement a new feature without going through\nthe RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC first.\nIf you are unsure if your change requires an RFC, just ask!\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 projects near or long-term goals, may be quickly rejected, which can\nbe demotivating for the unprepared contributor. Laying some groundwork ahead of\nthe RFC can make 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 Discord server], or discussing the topic on our\n[developer discussion forum].\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 OBS, 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 OBS.\nIt is recommended that no work start on implementation until an RFC is accepted.\n\n  - Fork the RFC repo [RFC repository]\n  - Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md`. Make sure the title\n    is descriptive. RFC number should match the next PR number.\n  - Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: RFCs that do not present\n    convincing motivation, demonstrate a 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 to the [RFC repository]. As a pull request the RFC\n    will receive design feedback from the larger community, and the author\n\tshould be prepared to revise it in response.\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 project developers to get\n    help identifying issues and obstacles.\n  - The project 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 team 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 team 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 team. Team\n    members use their best judgment in taking this step, and the FCP itself\n    ensures there is ample time and notification for interested parties to push\n    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  - The FCP lasts ten calendar days so that it is open for at least 5 business\n    days. This way all parties have a chance to lodge any final objections\n    before a decision 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 OBS Project (or appropriate module) repo. Being\n\"active\" is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature\nwill ultimately be merged; it does mean that in principle all the major interested\nparties have agreed to 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 an OBS Project developer has been assigned the\ntask of implementing the feature. While it is not *necessary* that the author\nof the RFC also write the implementation, it is by far the most effective way\nto see an 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 core team to decide.\n\n\n## Reviewing RFCs\n[Reviewing RFCs]: #reviewing-rfcs\n\nWhile the RFC pull request is up, the team may reach out to the author to\ndiscuss the issues in greater detail, and in some cases, the topic may be\ndiscussed at an internal team meeting. In either case, a summary from the\nresulting discussions will be posted back to the RFC pull request.\n\nThe core team makes final decisions about RFCs after the benefits and drawbacks\nare well understood. These decisions can be made at any time, but the 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 the thread, the team 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 relevant OBS Project\nrepository; thus that associated issue can be assigned a priority via the\ntriage process that the team uses for all issues in the relevant 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 or asking in the\n[official Discord server]).\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. Postponed pull\nrequests may be re-opened when the time is right. There is no formal process\nfor when a postponed RFC is reopened. We recommend asking us directly about\nany postponed RFCs in our [official Discord Server].\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[official Discord server]: https://obsproject.com/discord\n[developer discussion forum]: https://obsproject.com/forum/list/general-development.21/\n[RFC repository]: http://github.com/obsproject/rfcs\n\n## License\n[License]: #license\n\nThis repository is currently licensed under:\n\n* MIT license ([LICENSE-MIT](LICENSE-MIT) or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)\n\n### Contributions\n\nUnless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the work by you, as defined in the MIT license, without any additional terms or conditions.\n","project_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2Fobsproject%2Frfcs","html_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/projects/github.com%2Fobsproject%2Frfcs","lists_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2Fobsproject%2Frfcs/lists"}