RFC format

Summary

Problem statement

The CommonGrants protocol team needs to choose a forum for hosting a request for comment (RFC) period on the draft protocol to gather feedback from stakeholders, including public and private funders, grant platform executives, and developers. The format should align with open-source best practices, ensure accessibility, transparency, and minimize overhead.

Decision outcome

We’ve decided to use GitHub Discussions as the primary platform for hosting the RFC process. We’ll also plan to link to a Google Form in the GitHub Discussions thread as a secondary feedback option for who are not comfortable with GitHub.

• Positive consequences
  • Transparent and publicly accessible discussion format.
  • Well-integrated with GitHub, where protocol development occurs.
  • Enables threaded conversations and structured feedback.
  • Provides built-in engagement metrics (views, comments, reactions).
  • Provides a backup option for stakeholders who are not comfortable with GitHub.
• Negative consequences
  • Some less technical stakeholders may be unfamiliar with GitHub.
  • Stakeholders without a GitHub account will need to create one to participate.
  • Requires setting up guidelines for engagement to maintain productive discussions.
  • May result in conversations being fragmented across multiple platforms (GitHub Discussions and Google Form).

Decision drivers

• The RFC process and format should align with other open-source RFCs.
• The RFC process should be accessible to a mix of funders, grant platform execs, and developers.
• The RFC process should be open and transparent.
• The RFC process should require minimal overhead.
• It should be relatively easy to track engagement metrics (e.g., views, comments, response rate, etc.).

Options considered

• GitHub Discussions
• A dedicated webpage with a form/email for feedback
• Google Groups
• Discourse

Evaluation

Side-by-side

Criteria	GitHub Discussions	Dedicated Webpage	Google Groups	Discourse
Aligns with open-source RFCs	✅	🟡	❌	🟡
Accessible to a mix of stakeholders	🟡	✅	✅	✅
Open and transparent	✅	❌	✅	✅
Minimal overhead	✅	❌	❌	❌
Easy to track engagement metrics	✅	🟡	❌	❌

GitHub Discussions

Bottom line

GitHub Discussions is best if:

• We want to prioritize transparency and open engagement.
• We can provide onboarding support for non-technical stakeholders, or offer a secondary feedback option for those who are not comfortable with GitHub.

• Pros
  • Transparent, public, and structured discussion format.
  • Well-integrated into GitHub where development happens.
  • Enables easy tracking of engagement (comments, reactions, views).
• Cons
  • Some funders and grant execs may not be comfortable using GitHub.
  • Requires setup of participation guidelines to keep discussions productive.

Dedicated webpage with form/email

Bottom line

A dedicated webpage is best if:

• We want to maximize accessibility for non-technical stakeholders.
• We can manage the added overhead of manually compiling feedback.

• Pros
  • Easy for non-technical users to participate.
  • No need for a GitHub account.
• Cons
  • Harder to track engagement metrics and trends.
  • Feedback lacks the structured, conversational format of GitHub Discussions.
  • Higher overhead to review and synthesize responses.

Google Groups

Bottom line

Google Groups is best if:

• We want a familiar email-based discussion platform.
• We need a low-barrier entry point for non-technical users.
• We can manage the added overhead of manually compiling feedback.

• Pros
  • Familiar to many users as an email-based discussion tool.
  • Allows threaded conversations.
• Cons
  • Lacks structured engagement metrics.
  • Not widely used in open-source RFCs.
  • Can become difficult to moderate and organize long-term discussions.

Discourse

Bottom line

Discourse is best if:

• We want a structured discussion forum separate from GitHub.
• We are willing to maintain an additional platform.

• Pros
  • Supports structured discussions with threading and categories.
  • More accessible for non-developers than GitHub Discussions.
• Cons
  • Requires additional setup and moderation.
  • Engagement metrics may not be as easily tracked.
  • Separate from GitHub, potentially fragmenting discussions.