Apply suggestions from code review

Co-Authored-By: Romain Marcadier-Muller <[email protected]>
Adds code of conduct and notice files.

0000-template.md

@@ -1,11 +1,13 @@
-- Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique identifier, my-awesome-feature)
-- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
-- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
-- Related Issue: (leave this empty)
+---
+feature name: (fill me in with a unique identifier, my-awesome-feature)
+start date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
+rfc pr: (leave this empty)
+related issue: (tracking issue number)
+---
 
 # Summary
 
-Brief explanation of the feature.
+Brief description of the feature.
 
 # Motivation
 
@@ -30,6 +32,12 @@ implementation to implement. This should get into specifics and corner-cases,
 and include examples of how the feature is used. Any new terminology should be
 defined here.
 
+Include any diagrams and/or visualizations that help to demonstrate the design.
+Here are some tools that we often use:
+
+- [Graphviz](http://graphviz.it/#/gallery/structs.gv)
+- [PlantText](https://www.planttext.com)
+
 # Drawbacks
 
 Why should we _not_ do this? Please consider:
@@ -49,21 +57,20 @@ There are tradeoffs to choosing any path. Attempt to identify them here.
   choosing them?
 - What is the impact of not doing this?
 
-# Prior Art
-
-Discuss priort art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. A
-few examples of what this could include are.
-
--
-
 # Adoption Strategy
 
 If we implement this proposal, how will existing CDK developers adopt it? Is
 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?
+
 # Future Possibilities
 
-THing about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would be
+Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would be
 and how it would affect CDK as whole. Try to use this section as a tool to more
 fully consider all possible interactions with the project and ecosystem in your
 proposal. Also consider how this fits into the roadmap for the project.
@@ -73,8 +80,3 @@ are writing but are otherwise related.
 
 If you have tried and cannot think of any future possibilities, you may simply
 state that you cannot think of anything.
-
-# Unresolved questions
-
-Optional, but suggested for first drafts. What parts of the design are still
-TBD?

CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+## 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
+[email protected] with any additional questions or comments.

NOTICE

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+AWS Cloud Development Kit (AWS CDK)
+Copyright 2018-2018 Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

README.md

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# AWS CDK RFCs - [Active RFC List](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pulls)
+# AWS CDK RFCs - [Pending RFC List](https://github.com/awslabs/aws-cdk-rfcs/pulls)
 
 Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be
 implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.
@@ -10,18 +10,18 @@ core team.
 The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a
 consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project.
 
-[Active RFC List](https://github.com/awslabs/aws-cdk-rfcs/pulls)
+[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](), [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.
 - 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 React itself.
+  do not include code changes to CDK itself.
 
 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
@@ -33,15 +33,17 @@ 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 feature without going through
+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 of missing L1 or L2 constructs.
+- 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.
 
 ## What the process is
 
@@ -50,36 +52,46 @@ 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.
 
+- [Create a tracking issue](https://github.com/awslabs/aws-cdk-rfcs/issues/new)
+  for the proposed feature.
 - 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.
-- Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: **RFCs that do not present
-  convincing motiviation, demonstrate understanding of the impact of the design,
-  or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or alternatives tend to be
-  poorly-received**.
+- 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.
 - 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
-  with a comment and label on the RFCs pull request.
+  by a team member adding a comment and label on the RFCs pull request.
 - An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the team and community.
   Significant modifications may trigger a new final comment period.
-- An RFC may be rejecte4d by the team after public discussion has settled and
+- 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 ad the close of its final comment period. A team
+- 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'.
 
+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.
+
 ## 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 mpull request to the aws-cdk or related repos. Becoming 'active' is not a
+as a pull request to the aws-cdk or related repos. Becoming 'active' 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.
@@ -88,8 +100,8 @@ Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is 'active' implies
 nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor whether
 anybody is currently working on it.
 
-Modifications to active RFCs can be down in followup PRs. We strive to write
-each RFC in a manner that it will refelct the final design of the feature; but
+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
 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
@@ -98,9 +110,9 @@ document.
 
 ## Implementing an RFC
 
-The author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC
-author (like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation for
-review after the RFC has been accepted.
+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
@@ -119,6 +131,9 @@ The process is intended to be as lightweight as 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]**
 
 [yarn rfc process]: https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs