A repository for proposing and discussing major changes to the Svelte framework through a structured Request for Comments process.
Svelte RFCs is a repository and process for managing Request for Comments proposals for major changes to the Svelte JavaScript framework. It provides a structured way for contributors to propose, discuss, and iterate on significant features or breaking changes before they are implemented. The process ensures transparency and community involvement in Svelte's evolution.
Svelte core team members, framework contributors, and advanced community members who want to propose or review substantial changes to Svelte's architecture or public APIs.
It offers a standardized, transparent process inspired by other major frameworks (like React and Ember) that helps maintain Svelte's quality and stability while allowing for controlled evolution through community input and consensus building.
RFCs for changes to Svelte
Open-Awesome is built by the community, for the community. Submit a project, suggest an awesome list, or help improve the catalog on GitHub.
The RFC template forces contributors to clearly define problems and collect use cases, as highlighted in the README: 'A huge part of the value on an RFC is defining the problem clearly...', ensuring proposals are well-reasoned before implementation.
RFCs progress through stages like draft, final comment period, and active, with clear decision points, as described in 'The RFC life-cycle' section, making framework evolution visible to the community.
The process prioritizes building broad support, with RFCs that receive more comments and consensus being more likely to advance, fostering inclusive decision-making over top-down mandates.
Active RFCs can be modified via follow-up PRs to reflect evolving designs, as stated in the README, allowing flexibility and adaptation based on ongoing feedback.
RFCs require substantial effort to present convincing motivation and address alternatives, with the README warning that poorly-prepared proposals 'tend to be poorly-received', discouraging casual contributions.
The README admits 'the process itself is subject to change (or even abandonment!)', creating uncertainty for contributors who invest time in understanding and participating in the RFC workflow.
Reliance on community feedback and consensus-building can delay decisions, as RFCs may stall if concerns aren't thoroughly addressed, potentially slowing down framework evolution for urgent changes.