mirror of
https://github.com/openclaw/clawhub.git
synced 2026-08-14 00:47:57 +00:00
Patrick Erichsen
d7c774996e
* docs: add RFC community review process * chore: keep slug validator options internal
105 lines
3.2 KiB
YAML
105 lines
3.2 KiB
YAML
name: RFC
|
|
description: Propose a ClawHub policy, product, trust, or interface decision for feedback.
|
|
title: "RFC: "
|
|
labels:
|
|
- "type: rfc"
|
|
- "status: review"
|
|
body:
|
|
- type: markdown
|
|
attributes:
|
|
value: |
|
|
Use RFCs for decisions that need visible feedback before they become policy, product behavior, or public API contract. Accepted repo RFC files live under `rfcs/`, not `docs/`, so draft/decision records do not publish to the docs site. Keep sensitive enforcement details, private reports, exploit specifics, and scanner thresholds out of the public issue.
|
|
- type: dropdown
|
|
id: area
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Area
|
|
description: Pick the primary area this RFC affects.
|
|
options:
|
|
- Moderation / policy
|
|
- Security / trust
|
|
- Product / UX
|
|
- API / CLI
|
|
- Documentation
|
|
- Other
|
|
validations:
|
|
required: true
|
|
- type: textarea
|
|
id: context
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Context
|
|
description: What problem, decision, or ambiguity does this RFC address?
|
|
placeholder: |
|
|
ClawHub needs a clearer policy for...
|
|
validations:
|
|
required: true
|
|
- type: textarea
|
|
id: goals
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Goals
|
|
description: What should this RFC achieve?
|
|
placeholder: |
|
|
- Make enforcement expectations understandable to users.
|
|
- Give moderators a consistent decision boundary.
|
|
validations:
|
|
required: true
|
|
- type: textarea
|
|
id: non_goals
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Non-goals
|
|
description: What is intentionally out of scope?
|
|
placeholder: |
|
|
- This RFC does not expose internal scanner thresholds.
|
|
- This RFC does not decide implementation details for every moderation tool.
|
|
validations:
|
|
required: true
|
|
- type: textarea
|
|
id: proposal
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Proposal
|
|
description: Describe the proposed policy, behavior, or decision.
|
|
placeholder: |
|
|
ClawHub should...
|
|
validations:
|
|
required: true
|
|
- type: textarea
|
|
id: examples
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Examples
|
|
description: Give concrete allowed, not allowed, or edge-case examples.
|
|
placeholder: |
|
|
Allowed:
|
|
- Defensive security review with explicit scope and evidence.
|
|
|
|
Not allowed:
|
|
- Account takeover, evasion, or non-consensual surveillance workflows.
|
|
|
|
Edge cases:
|
|
- ...
|
|
- type: textarea
|
|
id: user_impact
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: User impact
|
|
description: How does this affect authors, users, moderators, API consumers, or external contributors?
|
|
placeholder: |
|
|
Authors will...
|
|
Users will...
|
|
Moderators will...
|
|
- type: textarea
|
|
id: open_questions
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Open questions
|
|
description: What feedback would be most useful before a decision?
|
|
placeholder: |
|
|
- Should appeals be handled in-product, through GitHub, or both?
|
|
- What examples would make this clearer?
|
|
validations:
|
|
required: true
|
|
- type: input
|
|
id: feedback_deadline
|
|
attributes:
|
|
label: Feedback deadline
|
|
description: Use an absolute date. Normal RFCs should stay open for 7-14 days unless urgent.
|
|
placeholder: "YYYY-MM-DD"
|
|
validations:
|
|
required: true
|