Streamline RFC process from four stages to a single Proposal stage

CHANGELOG.next.md

@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ Thanks, you're awesome :-) -->
 
 #### Improvements
 
+* Streamline RFC process from four stages (Strawperson, Draft, Candidate, Finished) to a single Proposal stage with target maturity. #2600
 * Increase composable template `total_fields.limit` from 2000 to 2500. #2584
 
 #### Deprecated

rfcs/0000-rfc-template.md

@@ -1,60 +1,44 @@
 # 0000: Name of RFC
-<!-- Leave this ID at 0000. The ECS team will assign a unique, contiguous RFC number upon merging the initial stage of this RFC. -->
+<!-- Leave this ID at 0000. The ECS team will assign a unique, contiguous RFC number upon merging this RFC. -->
 
-- Stage: **0 (strawperson)** <!-- Update to reflect target stage. See https://elastic.github.io/ecs/stages.html -->
-- Date: **TBD** <!-- The ECS team sets this date at merge time. This is the date of the latest stage advancement. -->
+- Stage: **Proposal** <!-- Do not change. -->
+- Date: **TBD** <!-- The ECS team sets this date at merge time. -->
+- Target maturity: **alpha | beta** <!-- Select one. See https://github.com/elastic/ecs/blob/main/docs/reference/ecs-principles-design.md#_field_stability -->
 
 <!--
-As you work on your RFC, use the "Stage N" comments to guide you in what you should focus on, for the stage you're targeting.
-Feel free to remove these comments as you go along.
+Remove these guidance comments as you fill out each section.
 -->
 
-<!--
-Stage 0: Provide a high level summary of the premise of these changes. Briefly describe the nature, purpose, and impact of the changes. ~2-5 sentences.
--->
-
-<!--
-Stage 1: If the changes include field additions or modifications, please create a folder titled as the RFC number under rfcs/text/. This will be where proposed schema changes as standalone YAML files or extended example mappings and larger source documents will go as the RFC is iterated upon.
--->
+## Summary
 
 <!--
-Stage X: Provide a brief explanation of why the proposal is being marked as abandoned. This is useful context for anyone revisiting this proposal or considering similar changes later on.
+Provide a high level summary of the premise of these changes. Briefly describe the nature, purpose, and impact of the changes. ~2-5 sentences.
 -->
 
 ## Fields
 
 <!--
-Stage 1: Describe at a high level how this change affects fields. Include new or updated yml field definitions for all of the essential fields in this draft. While not exhaustive, the fields documented here should be comprehensive enough to deeply evaluate the technical considerations of this change. The goal here is to validate the technical details for all essential fields and to provide a basis for adding experimental field definitions to the schema. Use GitHub code blocks with yml syntax formatting, and add them to the corresponding RFC folder.
--->
+If the changes include field additions or modifications, please create a folder titled as the RFC number under rfcs/text/. This is where proposed schema changes as standalone YAML files or extended example mappings and larger source documents should go.
 
-<!--
-Stage 2: Add or update all remaining field definitions. The list should now be exhaustive. The goal here is to validate the technical details of all remaining fields and to provide a basis for releasing these field definitions as beta in the schema. Use GitHub code blocks with yml syntax formatting, and add them to the corresponding RFC folder.
+Describe how this change affects fields. Include new or updated yml field definitions for all fields in this proposal. The list should be exhaustive and comprehensive enough to deeply evaluate the technical considerations of this change. The goal here is to validate the technical details for all fields and to provide a basis for adding the field definitions to the schema at the target maturity level. Use GitHub code blocks with yml syntax formatting, and add them to the corresponding RFC folder.
 -->
 
 ## Usage
 
 <!--
-Stage 1: Describe at a high-level how these field changes will be used in practice. Real world examples are encouraged. The goal here is to understand how people would leverage these fields to gain insights or solve problems. ~1-3 paragraphs.
+Describe at a high-level how these field changes will be used in practice. Real world examples are encouraged. The goal here is to understand how people would leverage these fields to gain insights or solve problems. ~1-3 paragraphs.
 -->
 
 ## Source data
 
 <!--
-Stage 1: Provide a high-level description of example sources of data. This does not yet need to be a concrete example of a source document, but instead can simply describe a potential source (e.g. nginx access log). This will ultimately be fleshed out to include literal source examples in a future stage. The goal here is to identify practical sources for these fields in the real world. ~1-3 sentences or unordered list.
--->
-
-<!--
-Stage 2: Included a real world example source document. Ideally this example comes from the source(s) identified in stage 1. If not, it should replace them. The goal here is to validate the utility of these field changes in the context of a real world example. Format with the source name as a ### header and the example document in a GitHub code block with json formatting, or if on the larger side, add them to the corresponding RFC folder.
--->
-
-<!--
-Stage 3: Add more real world example source documents so we have at least 2 total, but ideally 3. Format as described in stage 2.
+Identify practical sources for these fields in the real world (e.g. nginx access log) and include real world example source documents. Provide at least 2, but ideally 3. The goal here is to validate the utility of these field changes in the context of real world examples. Format with the source name as a ### header and the example document in a GitHub code block with json formatting, or if on the larger side, add them to the corresponding RFC folder.
 -->
 
 ## Scope of impact
 
 <!--
-Stage 2: Identifies scope of impact of changes. Are breaking changes required? Should deprecation strategies be adopted? Will significant refactoring be involved? Break the impact down into:
+Identify the scope of impact of changes. Are breaking changes required? Should deprecation strategies be adopted? Will significant refactoring be involved? Break the impact down into:
  * Ingestion mechanisms (e.g. beats/logstash)
  * Usage mechanisms (e.g. Kibana applications, detections)
  * ECS project (e.g. docs, tooling)
@@ -64,15 +48,9 @@ The goal here is to research and understand the impact of these changes on users
 ## Concerns
 
 <!--
-Stage 1: Identify potential concerns, implementation challenges, or complexity. Spend some time on this. Play devil's advocate. Try to identify the sort of non-obvious challenges that tend to surface later. The goal here is to surface risks early, allow everyone the time to work through them, and ultimately document resolution for posterity's sake.
--->
-
-<!--
-Stage 2: Document new concerns or resolutions to previously listed concerns. It's not critical that all concerns have resolutions at this point, but it would be helpful if resolutions were taking shape for the most significant concerns.
--->
+Identify potential concerns, implementation challenges, or complexity. Spend some time on this. Play devil's advocate. Try to identify the sort of non-obvious challenges that tend to surface later. The goal here is to surface risks early, allow everyone the time to work through them, and ultimately document resolution for posterity's sake.
 
-<!--
-Stage 3: Document resolutions for all existing concerns. Any new concerns should be documented along with their resolution. The goal here is to eliminate risk of churn and instability by ensuring all concerns have been addressed.
+Document resolutions for all concerns. The goal here is to eliminate risk of churn and instability by ensuring all concerns have been addressed.
 -->
 
 ## People
@@ -82,7 +60,7 @@ The following are the people that consulted on the contents of this RFC.
 * TBD | author
 
 <!--
-Who will be or has been consulted on the contents of this RFC? Identify authorship and sponsorship, and optionally identify the nature of involvement of others. Link to GitHub aliases where possible. This list will likely change or grow stage after stage.
+Who will be or has been consulted on the contents of this RFC? Identify authorship and sponsorship, and optionally identify the nature of involvement of others. Link to GitHub aliases where possible.
 
 e.g.:
 
@@ -93,18 +71,10 @@ e.g.:
 * @Mariana
 -->
 
-
 ## References
 
 <!-- Insert any links appropriate to this RFC in this section. -->
 
 ### RFC Pull Requests
 
-<!-- An RFC should link to the PRs for each of it stage advancements. -->
-
-* Stage 0: https://github.com/elastic/ecs/pull/NNN
-
-<!--
-* Stage 1: https://github.com/elastic/ecs/pull/NNN
-...
--->
+* Proposal: https://github.com/elastic/ecs/pull/NNN

rfcs/PROCESS.md

@@ -1,53 +1,49 @@
-# Proposing material changes to ECS
+# Proposing changes to ECS
 
-Changes to ECS are proposed as Requests for Comments (RFC) in [rfcs/](./) and iterated on through a series of [stages](https://elastic.github.io/ecs/stages.html). To advance to a specific stage, an RFC must meet the documented requirements for that stage. After being accepted into a given stage, there are stage-specific expectations and goals to be met. The overall goal of this process is to thoroughly evaluate and verify the assumptions being made about a change before formally committing it to the schema.
+Changes to ECS are proposed as Requests for Comments (RFCs) in [rfcs/](./). A contributor opens a single **Proposal** pull request that is reviewed holistically by the ECS committee. The goal is to thoroughly evaluate and verify the assumptions being made about a change before committing it to the schema.
 
-Each RFC is represented as a markdown document following a prescribed template that gets committed to the repo. Each stage of the RFC is represented as a pull request against that document.
+Each RFC is a markdown document following the [template](./0000-rfc-template.md). If the RFC proposes new or changed fields, it should also include a corresponding folder (named after the RFC number) in [rfcs/text/](./text/) containing the proposed schema changes as standalone YAML files or extended example mappings and larger source documents.
 
-If proposing new fields or changing existing fields, the RFC should also have a corresponding folder (named after the RFC number) in [rfcs/text/](./text/). The folder should contain the proposed schema changes as standalone YAML files or extended example mappings and larger source documents.
+## How a Proposal works
 
-Generally speaking, the ECS team will help steward the process, but the work of researching and iterating on aspects of an RFC will be owned by that RFC's contributor. If an RFC is being contributed by a community member, then someone at Elastic will need to act as a sponsor of the change to act as a long term owner after completion of the process. The ECS team can help community users with identifying an internal sponsor. If it's not obvious who such a sponsor might be, then the ECS committee will assign a sponsor.
+1. A contributor copies the [RFC template](./0000-rfc-template.md), fills in all sections, and opens a pull request.
+2. The contributor specifies a **target maturity** of **alpha** or **beta** for the proposed fields. See [Field stability](../docs/reference/ecs-principles-design.md#_field_stability) for definitions.
+3. The ECS committee reviews the proposal in a single pass, evaluating the key questions below.
+4. On approval the committee merges the PR, and the ECS team assigns a unique RFC number.
+5. The proposed fields are added to the schema at the accepted maturity level (by the contributor or the ECS team). This step will be automated in the future so that field definitions are applied to the schema on merge of the Proposal PR.
 
-## Key questions we seek to answer through RFC process
+GA promotion is handled separately through the field lifecycle process and does not require a new RFC. In the future, fields will be automatically promoted from beta to GA once an adoption threshold is met. If a proposal is no longer being pursued, the PR is simply closed.
+
+## Key questions
 
 * Is this change appropriate for ECS?
 * Does this change provide enough utility for its intended use cases?
 * Does this change strike a sufficient balance between introducing new fields and reusing existing common fields?
 * Is ownership for the ongoing maintenance of this change clearly defined and accepted?
 * Is the scope of impact of this change to ingestion, existing applications, and the ECS project itself understood?
 * Are the technical details of the change defined clearly enough to implement in the schema?
-* Are we confident these changes can be stable upon release without requiring revisions or breaking changes?
-* Have our assumptions about the shape and utility of these changes been verified by real-world, production-ready usage?
-
-## Goals with this contributing process
-
-* Allow contributors to quickly iterate and receive feedback on their fields in a transparent way without the high bar set for general availability in the schema
-* Clarify the level of stability to expect from a change in ECS while still allowing early adopters to try it out and provide feedback
-* Offer assurance that once an RFC reaches stage 3, we're able to guarantee backward compatibility
+* Are we confident these changes can be stable at the proposed maturity level?
 
-## Responsibilities in this process
+## Responsibilities
 
 Member(s) of the **ECS committee**:
-* evaluates whether the changes are appropriate in terms of the goals of the ECS project
-* provides recommendations on which common fields would be best suited for reuse versus adding new fields
-* determines whether each RFC is accepted into the next target stage by merging the RFC PR
+* evaluate whether the changes are appropriate in terms of the goals of the ECS project
+* provide recommendations on which common fields would be best suited for reuse versus adding new fields
+* determine the accepted maturity level (alpha or beta) and merge the Proposal PR
 
 The **ECS team**:
-* provides procedural guidance for moving an RFC through stages
-* curates the overall RFC process, including closing stalled or abandoned RFCs
-* reports on the status of open RFCs
-* acts on behalf of the committee for some but not all PRs
-* helps community users identify a sponsor at Elastic
+* provide procedural guidance for contributors
+* curate the RFC process, including closing stalled or abandoned RFCs
+* report on the status of open RFCs
+* act on behalf of the committee for some but not all PRs
+* help community users identify a sponsor at Elastic
 
 The **contributor**:
-* takes responsibility for doing all necessary legwork to move their RFC forward including but not limited to responding to feedback, identifying and bringing in subject matter experts, and researching the scope of impact
-* demonstrates how the fields in the RFC are expected to be used: from the data source, all the way to its consumption
-* commits to iterating on the RFCs through to stage 3 if necessary
-* creates and iterate on RFC PRs
-* implements all necessary changes to their RFC PRs
+* take responsibility for the legwork required to move their RFC forward, including responding to feedback, identifying and bringing in subject matter experts, and researching the scope of impact
+* demonstrate how the proposed fields are expected to be used, from data source through to consumption
+* create and iterate on the Proposal PR
 
 The **sponsor** at Elastic:
-* can be the same person as the contributor if they're someone at Elastic that can take ownership of this change through membership on the ECS committee
-* is involved at least from stage 1 onward if a different person than the contributor
-* signs off on each stage if a different person than the contributor
-* takes or coordinates ownership of the addition in terms of support and maintenance after the RFC process is completed
+* can be the same person as the contributor if they are an Elastic employee who can take ownership through committee membership
+* sign off on the proposal if a different person than the contributor
+* take or coordinate ownership of the addition in terms of support and maintenance after the RFC process is completed