Chef RFCs and You


#1

In the last Chef community meeting we agreed to merge the new RFC 0 to define
the RFC process. This formalizes the RFC submission and review process to make
it easier for new contributors to know where to begin and to ensure all RFCs go
through the same process. For those unfamiliar with Chef RFCs or similar processes
here is a quick overview.

What is an RFC?

Each RFC proposes a major change to Chef or another piece of software, or to the
processes we use to develop them. Not every change requires an RFC, but for big
changes or those that may affect a large number of people the RFC process
allows us to discuss and develop them together. Each RFC describes the problem
it is solving, the motivation for the change, a specification of the change, and
a discussion of how this specification was arrived at.

Who can submit an RFC?

You! Everyone is encouraged to submit RFCs and join the discussion on existing
ones. No CLA or other paperwork is required.

How do I submit an RFC?

First read over RFC 0 (https://github.com/opscode/chef-rfc/blob/master/rfc000-rfc-process.md)
which defines the RFC process. In there you can find a template to help you
get started writing your own RFC. Once you have an RFC ready, you can submit it
as a pull request to the chef-rfc (https://github.com/opscode/chef-rfc)
repository. The community will then discuss your proposal, and if accepted it
will be merged and you can begin your implementation work.

What does this mean for Open Source Chef?

It means that there is a much more direct way for everyone to have a voice in
shaping the future of Chef as a project. Chef Software still act as stewards of
the project but they have committed to working with the community through this
process and believe, as I do, that it will help build better software for both
the company and community!

Where can I ask questions about the RFC process?

You can always reach me at noah@coderanger.net, I’ll be happy to answer any
questions I am able. You can also find me on #chef as coderanger or Twitter
as @kantrn. This process is still very new and I welcome any and all help to make
it as open and welcoming as possible!

Originally posted as https://coderanger.net/chef-rfcs/.

–Noah


#2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Noah Kantrowitz wrote:

What is an RFC?

Why no mention of “request for comments” or rationale for the co-opting
of a term that has been associated almost exclusively with the IETF and
its ancestors since somewhere around the dawn of ARPANET nearly a
half-century ago?


Phil Mocek
https://mocek.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Jdmo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


#3

Is this a problem for you? Luckily, we Noe have a process for changing it
:slight_smile: would love to hear why.

Adam
On Sep 4, 2014 11:48 AM, “Phil Mocek” phil-lists@mocek.org wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Noah Kantrowitz wrote:

What is an RFC?

Why no mention of “request for comments” or rationale for the co-opting
of a term that has been associated almost exclusively with the IETF and
its ancestors since somewhere around the dawn of ARPANET nearly a
half-century ago?


Phil Mocek
https://mocek.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Jdmo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


#4

Requesting for comments on RFCs as a service.

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Adam Jacob adam@getchef.com wrote:

Is this a problem for you? Luckily, we Noe have a process for changing it :slight_smile:
would love to hear why.

Adam

On Sep 4, 2014 11:48 AM, “Phil Mocek” phil-lists@mocek.org wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Noah Kantrowitz wrote:

What is an RFC?

Why no mention of “request for comments” or rationale for the co-opting
of a term that has been associated almost exclusively with the IETF and
its ancestors since somewhere around the dawn of ARPANET nearly a
half-century ago?


Phil Mocek
https://mocek.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Jdmo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


#5

On Sep 4, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Phil Mocek phil-lists@mocek.org wrote:

Signed PGP part
Noah Kantrowitz wrote:

What is an RFC?

Why no mention of “request for comments” or rationale for the co-opting
of a term that has been associated almost exclusively with the IETF and
its ancestors since somewhere around the dawn of ARPANET nearly a
half-century ago?

It was discussed when RFC0 was proposed as to if it would cause confusion. The conclusion was that in context it is highly unlikely to result in a case where there is substantial semantic overlap. I could definitely get behind the abbreviation CRFC to further distinguish things though. As for not mentioning it in this post, it was intended as a gentle overview :slight_smile:

–Noah


#6

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Noah Kantrowitz wrote:

I could definitely get behind the abbreviation CRFC

I support that. CEP, like Python’s PEP, would seemingly work well,
too.

RFC 2822, for instance, will always mean the Internet e-mail spec to me,
regardless of context.

As for not mentioning it in this post, it was intended as a gentle
overview

Stating what an abbreviation stands for seems reasonably gentle to me,
and is about as overview-ish as you can get in the response to the
question, “What is an ?”


Phil Mocek
https://mocek.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=UpT8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----