This page describes the format to be used when developing RFCs for proposal to the  MetaCRS mailing list and subsequent presentation to the MetaCRS PSC. New RFCs should be created following the instructions at the top of the RFCs page.

The original version of this document was based on the RFCs from  http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc.

RFC Template Version: 1.0 Last Modified: 04:50, 3 November 2006 (CET) (Jason Birch)


CS-Map RFC # - Title Goes Here

This page contains an change request (RFC) for the CS-Map Open Source project. More CS-Map RFCs can be found on the RFCs page.

Status

RFC Template Version(1.0)
Submission Date(Date/Time? submitted)
Last Modified(your name here)

Error: Failed to load processor Timestamp
No macro or processor named 'Timestamp' found

Author(your name here)
RFC Status(draft, proposed, frozen for vote, adopted, retracted, or rejected)
Implementation Status(pending, under development, completed)
Proposed Milestone(e.g. 1.1, 1.3, 2.1)
Assigned PSC guide(s)(when determined)
Voting History(vote date)
+1Frank, Norm
+0Mike
-0
-1Hugues (troublemaker)
no vote

Overview

This section briefly describes the problem set, and the proposed solution in general terms. It should be deliberately short, a couple of sentences or so.

Motivation

This is the most important part of the RFC. It describes the problem domain in detail. Focusing on this will allow reviewers to fully understand why the proposed change is being made, and potentially suggest different/better ways of accomplishing the desired results. The more time we spend on understanding the problem, the better our solution will be.

Proposed Solution

This is a more detailed description of the actual changes desired. The contents of this section will vary based on the target of the RFC, be it a technical change, website change, or process change. For example, for a technical change, items such as files, new coordinate system definition, WKT mapping, and API chances would be identified. For a process change, the new process would be laid out in detail. For a website change, the files affected would be listed.

Implications

This section allows discussion of the repercussions of the change, such as whether there will be any breakage in backwards compatibility, if documentation will need to be updated, etc.

Test Plan

How the proposed change will be tested, if applicable. New unit tests should be detailed here???

Funding/Resources?

This section will confirm that the proposed feature has enough support to proceed. This would typically mean that the entity making the changes would put forward the RFC, but a non-developer could act as an RFC author if they are sure they have the funding to cover the change.