Adds issue and PR templates.

Adds templates for guidance when creating tracking issues and pull
requests. Clarifies rfc lifecycle states further in readme.

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/tracking-issue.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+title: "RFC: title" <!-- fill in title -->
+labels: tracking issue
+---
+
+<!-- fill out PR ID and core team champion when known -->
+
+|PR|Champion|
+|--|--------|
+|# |        |
+
+## Description
+
+<!-- Short description of the proposed feature. Save the details for the RFC document. -->
+
+## Progress
+
+<!-- indicates the state of the proposal -->
+<!-- see readme for information on rfc lifecycle -->
+
+- [x] - Tracking Issue Created
+- [ ] - RFC PR Created <!-- add link to header when available -->
+- [ ] - Core Team Member Assigned <!-- add username to header when known -->
+- [ ] - Initial Approval / Final Comment Period
+- [ ] - Ready For Implementation
+    <!-- add list of issues needed for implementing the proposal here -->
+    - [ ] implementation issue 1
+- [ ] - Resolved <!-- implementation complete and merged -->

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: "RFC: #<rfc#> <title>" <!-- <rfc#> is the tracking issue number and <title> is the rfc name -->
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+<!-- Call out suggestions for reviewers to discuss -->
+
+<!-- link to the proposal document for readers to view rendered version -->
+### [Rendered](/my-fork/text/xxxx.md)
+
+---
+
+_By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
+the terms of the Apache-2.0 license_

0000-template.md

@@ -24,6 +24,11 @@ the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words,
 enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too
 closely to the solution you have in mind.
 
+# Design Summary
+
+Summarize the approach of the feature design in a couple of sentences. Call out
+any known patterns or best practices the design is based around.
+
 # Detailed Design
 
 This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody
@@ -64,9 +69,13 @@ this a breaking change? How can we assist in adoption?
 
 # Unresolved questions
 
-- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged?
-- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before stabilization?
-- What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC?
+- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process
+  before this gets merged?
+- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation
+  of this feature before stabilization?
+- What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be
+  addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this
+  RFC?
 
 # Future Possibilities
 

CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
 ## Code of Conduct
 
-This project has adopted the [Amazon Open Source Code of Conduct](https://aws.github.io/code-of-conduct).
-For more information see the [Code of Conduct FAQ](https://aws.github.io/code-of-conduct-faq) or contact
+This project has adopted the
+[Amazon Open Source Code of Conduct](https://aws.github.io/code-of-conduct). For
+more information see the
+[Code of Conduct FAQ](https://aws.github.io/code-of-conduct-faq) or contact
 [email protected] with any additional questions or comments.

README.md

@@ -3,73 +3,78 @@
 Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be
 implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.
 
-Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put
-through a bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the CDK
-core team.
+Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put through a
+bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the CDK core team.
 
-The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a
-consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project.
+The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and
+controlled path for new features to enter the project.
 
 [Pending RFC List](https://github.com/awslabs/aws-cdk-rfcs/pulls)
 
 ## When to follow this process
 
 You should consider using this process if you intend to make "substantial"
-changes to [AWS CDK](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk), [JSII](https://github.com/aws/jsii), or related tools. Some examples that would
+changes to [AWS CDK](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk),
+[JSII](https://github.com/aws/jsii), or related tools. Some examples that would
 benefit from an RFC are:
 
-- Any change to existing APIs that would break existing code.
+- Any change to existing APIs that could break existing code.
 - The removal of existing features or public APIs.
-- The introduction of new idiomatic usage or conventions, even if they
-  do not include code changes to CDK itself.
+- The introduction of new idiomatic usage or conventions, even if they do not
+  include code changes to CDK itself.
+- Changes to the documented contribution workflow.
+- Features that cross multiple construct libraries.
+- Additions or changes to framework capabilities.
+- Additions or changes to formal specifications like cloud assembly, tree.json,
+  jsii, etc.
 
 The RFC process is a great opportunity to get more eyeballs on your proposal
 before it becomes a part of a released version of CDK. Quite often, even
-proposals that seem "obvious" can be significantly improved once a wider
-group of interested people have a chance to weigh in.
+proposals that seem "obvious" can be significantly improved once a wider group
+of interested people have a chance to weigh in.
 
 The RFC process can also be helpful to encourage discussions about a proposed
-feature as it is being designed, and incorporate important constraints into
-the design while it's easier to change, before the design has been fully
+feature as it is being designed, and incorporate important constraints into the
+design while it's easier to change, before the design has been fully
 implemented.
 
-If you submit a pull request to implement a new major feature without going through
-the RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC first.
+If you submit a pull request to implement a new major feature without going
+through the RFC process, it may be closed with a polite request to submit an RFC
+first.
 
 Some changes do not require an RFC:
 
 - Bugfixes for known issues.
-- Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other developers-of-CDK,
-  invisible to users-of-CDK.
+- Additions only likely to be _noticed by_ other developers-of-CDK, invisible to
+  users-of-CDK.
 - Additions of missing L1 or L2 constructs. Unless the service and/or constructs
-  are especially complex or intentionally diverge from existing api design
-  best practices.
+  are especially complex or intentionally diverge from existing api design best
+  practices.
 
 ## What the process is
 
-In short, to get a major feature added to CDK, one usually first gets
-the RFC merged into the RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC
-is 'active' and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion
-into CDK.
+In short, to get a major feature added to CDK, one usually first gets the RFC
+merged into the RFC repo as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is 'ready'
+and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into CDK.
 
-- [Create a tracking issue](https://github.com/awslabs/aws-cdk-rfcs/issues/new)
-  for the proposed feature.
+- [Create a tracking issue](https://github.com/awslabs/aws-cdk-rfcs/issues/new?template=tracking-issue.md)
+  for the proposed feature if one doesn't already exist. Use the tracking issue
+  template as a guide. If a tracking issue already exists, make sure to update
+  it and assign it to let others know you're working on a proposal.
 - Fork the RFC repo https://github.com/awslabs/aws-cdk-rfcs
-- Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/0000-my-feature.md` (where 'my-feature' is
-  descriptive. Don't assign an RFC number yet.
+- Copy `0000-template.md` to `text/<rfc#>-<my-feature>.md` where <rfc#> is the
+  tracking issue number and <my-feature> is the rfc title.
 - Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: **We welcome all honest efforts to
   contribute.**.
-- Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design
-  feedback from the core team and the larger community, and the author should
-  be prepared to make revisions in response.
-  - The RFC number is the PR ID, change `0000-my-feature.md` to
-    `<pr-number>-my-feature.md` and add the PR # to the template document
-    where needed once it is known.
-  - Link to the RFC PR from the tracking issue.
-- Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are
-  much more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments.
-- Eventually, the team will decide whether the RFC is a candidate for
-  inclusion in CDK.
+- Submit a pull request with the title `RFC: <rfc#> <title>` where <rfc#> is the
+  tracking issue number and title is the name of the proposal. As a pull request
+  the RFC will receive design feedback from the core team and the larger
+  community, and the author should be prepared to make revisions in response.
+  - Update the tracking issue with a link to the RFC PR.
+- Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are much
+  more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments.
+- Eventually, the team will decide whether the RFC is a candidate for inclusion
+  in CDK.
 - RFCs that are candidates for inclusion in CDK will enter a "final comment
   period" lasting 3 calendar days. The beginning of this period will be signaled
   by a team member adding a comment and label on the RFCs pull request.
@@ -78,31 +83,67 @@ into CDK.
 - An RFC may be rejected by the team after public discussion has settled and
   comments have been made summarizing the rationale for rejection. A member of
   the team should then close the RFCs associated pull request.
-- An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A team
-  member will merge the RFCs associated pull request, at which point the RFC
-  will become 'active'.
+- An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A team member
+  will merge the RFCs associated pull request, at which point the RFC will
+  become 'ready'.
 
 A core team member will be assigned to 'champion' each proposal. They will
-generally be the ones updating the PR's state as it moves through the process.
-They can decide when a final comment period is triggered.
+generally be the ones updating the RFCs state in the tracking issue as it moves
+through the process. They can decide when a final comment period is triggered.
 
 ## The RFC life-cycle
 
-![rfc states](./rfc-states.svg)
-
-Once an RFC becomes active, then authors may implement it and submit the feature
-as a pull request to the aws-cdk or related repos. Becoming 'active' is not a
+![rfc-states](https://g.gravizo.com/svg?digraph%20states%20{node%20[shape=ellipse];proposed%20[label%20=%20%22Proposed%22];pending%20[label%20=%20%22Pending%22];fcp%20[label%20=%20%22Final%20Comment%20Period%22];ready%20[label%20=%20%22Ready%22];resolved%20[label%20=%20%22Resolved%22];proposed%20-%3E%20pending%20[label%20=%20%22%20rfc%20pr%20created%22];pending%20-%3E%20pending%20[label%20=%20%22%20revisions%22];pending%20-%3E%20fcp%20[label%20=%20%22core%20team%20approval%20%20%20%20%22];fcp%20-%3E%20pending%20[label%20=%20%22%20revision%20requested%22];fcp%20-%3E%20ready%20[label%20=%20%22%20merged%22];ready%20-%3E%20resolved%20[label%20=%20%22%20implementation%20complete%22];})
+
+<!-- for later reference from renderer -->
+<details> 
+<summary></summary>
+custom_mark10
+  digraph states {
+    node [shape=ellipse];
+    proposed [label = "Proposed"];
+    pending [label = "Pending"];
+    fcp [label = "Final Comment Period"];
+    ready [label = "Ready"];
+    resolved [label = "Resolved"];
+    proposed -> pending [label = " rfc pr created"];
+    pending -> pending [label = " revisions"];
+    pending -> fcp [label = "core team approval    "];
+    fcp -> pending [label = " revision requested"];
+    fcp -> ready [label = " merged"];
+    ready -> resolved [label = " implementation complete"];
+  }
+custom_mark10
+</details>
+
+An RFC flows through the following states.
+
+1. Proposed - A tracking issue has been created with a basic outline of the
+   proposal.
+2. Pending - An RFC document has been written with a detailed design and a PR is
+   under review.
+3. Final Comment Period - A core team member has been assigned to oversee the
+   proposal and at least 1 core team member has approved the RFC PR.
+   - An RFC may be reverted or closed during final comment period if a member of
+     the core team or community raises a previously unforeseen issue that is
+     cause for concern.
+4. Ready - Final comment period is complete and the PR is merged.
+5. Resolved - The implementation is complete and merged across appropriate
+   repositories.
+
+Once an RFC becomes ready, then authors may implement it and submit the feature
+as a pull request to the aws-cdk or related repos. Becoming 'ready' is not a
 rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately
 be merged; it does mean that the core team has agreed to it in principle and are
 amenable to merging it.
 
-Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is 'active' implies
+Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is 'ready' implies
 nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor whether
 anybody is currently working on it.
 
-Modifications to active RFCs can be done in followup PRs. We strive to write
-each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of the feature; but
-the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every merged RFC to
+Modifications to RFCs marked 'ready' can be done in followup PRs. We strive to
+write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of the feature;
+but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every merged RFC to
 actually reflect what the end result will be at the time of the next major
 release; therefore we try to keep each RFC document somewhat in sync with the
 feature as planned, tracking such changes via followup pull requests to the
@@ -114,9 +155,9 @@ While the author of an RFC (like any other developer) is welcome to offer an
 implementation for review after the RFC has been accepted, they have no
 obligation to do so.
 
-If you are interested in working on the implementation for an 'active' RFC, but
-cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask
-(e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue).
+If you are interested in working on the implementation for an RFC marked
+'ready', but cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel
+free to ask (e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated tracking issue).
 
 ## Reviewing RFCs
 
@@ -127,14 +168,15 @@ the feature and its progress.
 
 ## Help this is all too informal!
 
-The process is intended to be as lightweight as reasonable for the present
+The process is intended to be as lightweight and reasonable for the present
 circumstances. As usual, we are trying to let the process be driven by consensus
 and community norms, not impose more structure than necessary.
 
 The RFC process itself is subject to changes as dictated by the core team and
 the community.
 
-**AWS CDK's RFC process owes its inspiration to the [Yarn RFC process], [Rust RFC process], [React RFC process], and [Ember RFC process]**
+**AWS CDK's RFC process owes its inspiration to the [Yarn RFC process], [Rust
+RFC process], [React RFC process], and [Ember RFC process]**
 
 [yarn rfc process]: https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs
 [rust rfc process]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs