Technical RFC Process & Asynchronous Architecture

Stack: DELIVERY THEATER STACK →Staff+ (L6+)protocol

⚡THE SHORT ANSWER

By replacing synchronous meetings with written design proposals in version control, establishing a time-boxed review window, and capturing explicit trade-offs and dissent before code is written.

Engineering Handbook & Failure Dynamics

6-Dimensional Architecture Breakdown

⚙️1. Underlying Mechanism

Execution

Adapted from the IETF and pioneered by companies like Rust, Uber, and GitLab, the internal RFC (Request for Comments) process requires engineers proposing major architectural shifts (new databases, API breaking changes, protocol shifts) to author a standardized markdown proposal. The RFC outlines the problem statement, proposed solution, evaluated alternatives, security implications, and trade-offs. The team reviews asynchronously within a strict time-box (e.g., 7 business days) before a designated decision-maker approves or rejects it.

🎯2. Appropriate Use Context

Scope

Mandatory for all cross-team architectural changes, data storage additions, or protocol migrations in engineering teams with >15 developers.

⚠️3. Production Failure Modes

P0 Risk

✓
A senior engineer rewrites the authentication system in a new language over a weekend without an RFC
✓
when it fails in production, nobody else on the team knows how to maintain or debug it

📡4. Diagnostic Signals & Telemetry

Telemetry

✓
Architectural debates settled by who speaks the loudest in meetings
✓
repeat questions about why a technology was chosen
✓
projects cancelled halfway through due to discovered blind spots

🛡️5. Prevention & Safeguards

Safeguards

✓
Establish an RFC git repository with a standardized template
✓
enforce a strict 2-week time-box to prevent bikeshedding
✓
appoint a single designated Decider (typically a Staff Engineer or Tech Lead) for each RFC

⚖️6. Architectural Trade-offs

Trade-off

Requires upfront writing rigor and patience for asynchronous review in exchange for high-alignment execution and permanent institutional memory.

📋

Case Study (TinyCTO In-Field Example)

REAL-WORLD TELEMETRY

TinyCTO Episode 19: An engineer wanted to replace PostgreSQL with MongoDB. Through the RFC review process, the team calculated that document storage would break 80% of reporting queries, saving 4 months of wasted development.

Interactive Concept Drills

3 Cards

What is the primary purpose of a technical RFC?

To build consensus, evaluate trade-offs, and surface architectural blind spots asynchronously before writing code.

What is 'Bikeshedding' and how do you prevent it in RFCs?

Disproportionate debate on trivial details (like syntax or naming); prevented by strict time-boxing and a designated final decider.

Where should approved RFCs be stored?

In the main codebase git repository alongside Architecture Decision Records (ADRs).