Placeholder
parent
26f5effe45
commit
8cde3781be
@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
|
||||
# MSC0000: Template for new MSCs
|
||||
|
||||
*Note: Text written in italics represents notes about the section or proposal process. This document
|
||||
serves as an example of what a proposal could look like (in this case, a proposal to have a template)
|
||||
and should be used where possible.*
|
||||
|
||||
*In this first section, be sure to cover your problem and a broad overview of the solution. Covering
|
||||
related details, such as the expected impact, can also be a good idea. The example in this document
|
||||
says that we're missing a template and that things are confusing and goes on to say the solution is
|
||||
a template. There's no major expected impact in this proposal, so it doesn't list one. If your proposal
|
||||
was more invasive (such as proposing a change to how servers discover each other) then that would be
|
||||
a good thing to list here.*
|
||||
|
||||
*If you're having troubles coming up with a description, a good question to ask is "how
|
||||
does this proposal improve Matrix?" - the answer could reveal a small impact, and that is okay.*
|
||||
|
||||
There can never be enough templates in the world, and MSCs shouldn't be any different. The level
|
||||
of detail expected of proposals can be unclear - this is what this example proposal (which doubles
|
||||
as a template itself) aims to resolve.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposal
|
||||
|
||||
*Here is where you'll reinforce your position from the introduction in more detail, as well as cover
|
||||
the technical points of your proposal. Including rationale for your proposed solution and detailing
|
||||
why parts are important helps reviewers understand the problem at hand. Not including enough detail
|
||||
can result in people guessing, leading to confusing arguments in the comments section. The example
|
||||
here covers why templates are important again, giving a stronger argument as to why we should have
|
||||
a template. Afterwards, it goes on to cover the specifics of what the template could look like.*
|
||||
|
||||
Having a default template that everyone can use is important. Without a template, proposals would be
|
||||
all over the place and the minimum amount of detail may be left out. Introducing a template to the
|
||||
proposal process helps ensure that some amount of consistency is present across multiple proposals,
|
||||
even if each author decides to abandon the template.
|
||||
|
||||
The default template should be a markdown document because the MSC process requires authors to write
|
||||
a proposal in markdown. Using other formats wouldn't make much sense because that would prevent authors
|
||||
from copy/pasting the template.
|
||||
|
||||
The template should have the following sections:
|
||||
|
||||
* **Introduction** - This should cover the primary problem and broad description of the solution.
|
||||
* **Proposal** - The gory details of the proposal.
|
||||
* **Potential issues** - This is where problems with the proposal would be listed, such as changes
|
||||
that are not backwards compatible.
|
||||
* **Alternatives** - This section lists alternative solutions to the same
|
||||
problem which have been considered and dismsissed.
|
||||
* **Security considerations** - Discussion of what steps were taken to avoid security issues in the
|
||||
future and any potential risks in the proposal.
|
||||
|
||||
Furthermore, the template should not be required to be followed. However it is strongly recommended to
|
||||
maintain some sense of consistency between proposals.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Potential issues
|
||||
|
||||
*Not all proposals are perfect. Sometimes there's a known disadvantage to implementing the proposal,
|
||||
and they should be documented here. There should be some explanation for why the disadvantage is
|
||||
acceptable, however - just like in this example.*
|
||||
|
||||
Someone is going to have to spend the time to figure out what the template should actually have in it.
|
||||
It could be a document with just a few headers or a supplementary document to the process explanation,
|
||||
however more detail should be included. A template that actually proposes something should be considered
|
||||
because it not only gives an opportunity to show what a basic proposal looks like, it also means that
|
||||
explanations for each section can be described. Spending the time to work out the content of the template
|
||||
is beneficial and not considered a significant problem because it will lead to a document that everyone
|
||||
can follow.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Alternatives
|
||||
|
||||
*This is where alternative solutions could be listed. There's almost always another way to do things
|
||||
and this section gives you the opportunity to highlight why those ways are not as desirable. The
|
||||
argument made in this example is that all of the text provided by the template could be integrated
|
||||
into the proposals introduction, although with some risk of losing clarity.*
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of adding a template to the repository, the assistance it provides could be integrated into
|
||||
the proposal process itself. There is an argument to be had that the proposal process should be as
|
||||
descriptive as possible, although having even more detail in the proposals introduction could lead to
|
||||
some confusion or lack of understanding. Not to mention if the document is too large then potential
|
||||
authors could be scared off as the process suddenly looks a lot more complicated than it is. For those
|
||||
reasons, this proposal does not consider integrating the template in the proposals introduction a good
|
||||
idea.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Security considerations
|
||||
|
||||
*Some proposals may have some security aspect to them that was addressed in the proposed solution. This
|
||||
section is a great place to outline some of the security-sensitive components of your proposal, such as
|
||||
why a particular approach was (or wasn't) taken. The example here is a bit of a stretch and unlikely to
|
||||
actually be worthwhile of including in a proposal, but it is generally a good idea to list these kinds
|
||||
of concerns where possible.*
|
||||
|
||||
By having a template available, people would know what the desired detail for a proposal is. This is not
|
||||
considered a risk because it is important that people understand the proposal process from start to end.
|
||||
|
||||
## Unstable prefix
|
||||
|
||||
*If a proposal is implemented before it is included in the spec, then implementers must ensure that the
|
||||
implementation is compatible with the final version that lands in the spec. This generally means that
|
||||
experimental implementations should use `/unstable` endpoints, and use vendor prefixes where necessary.
|
||||
For more information, see [MSC2324](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/2324). This section
|
||||
should be used to document things such as what endpoints and names are being used while the feature is
|
||||
in development, the name of the unstable feature flag to use to detect support for the feature, or what
|
||||
migration steps are needed to switch to newer versions of the proposal.*
|
||||
|
||||
## Dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
This MSC builds on MSCxxxx, MSCyyyy and MSCzzzz (which at the time of writing have not yet been accepted
|
||||
into the spec).
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue