docs(governance): add an RFC process for TeachLink Web

[ameeribro4-sudo]

Summary

Closes #1494

Adds Governance/processes/RFC_PROCESS.md, the RFC (Request for Comments) process for TeachLink Web. The document defines when a design change requires an RFC, the five lifecycle stages with owners and exit criteria for each, and explicit acceptance and rejection criteria. The single most important design decision is that the process is written to the repository as it exists today: it routes structural change through one predictable path while keeping small, bounded fixes on the normal issue/PR flow, and it records decisions with their reasoning so rejected proposals remain a durable record.

Also closes

Closes #1496, Closes #1495, Closes #1493

Why

The Governance/ folder had no process defining how design proposals are raised, reviewed, and decided. Contributors could not predict whether a substantial change needed a review cycle before implementation, when decisions would be made, or by whom. The RFC process closes that gap so structural work is designed and reviewed before large effort is spent, and gives maintainers an explicit acceptance/rejection contract to apply consistently.

What was built

File	What it contains
Governance/processes/RFC_PROCESS.md	RFC process: purpose and scope; when an RFC is required (with explicit non-requirements); a five-stage lifecycle (Idea → Draft → Open for Comment → Decision → Implemented or Ended) with owners and exit criteria per stage; acceptance and rejection criteria; ownership; success criteria

The document follows the structure used by the existing governance policies (Purpose → Scope → sections → Ownership → Success) so Governance/ stays uniform.

Integration changes outside Governance/

No existing files modified — the change adds one Markdown file inside Governance/processes/ only, so regression risk is low.

Acceptance criteria coverage (primary issue)

• Governance requirement is implemented successfully (Governance/processes/RFC_PROCESS.md created, covering when an RFC is required, the lifecycle stages, and acceptance/rejection criteria)
• Scope is limited to a maximum of two files (exactly one file: Governance/processes/RFC_PROCESS.md)
• No changes are made outside the Governance folder (verified: git diff --stat against origin/main shows a single file under Governance/)
• No regression in existing functionality (documentation-only change; no application code touched)
• Tests pass and code follows project standards (see Test plan — the change is pure Markdown, which has no compile, type, or unit-test surface)
• Change is documented (this PR description plus a scoped conventional-commit message)

Deliberately deferred

The ADR process (#1496) covers lightweight architecture decision records for decisions that do not warrant a full community RFC; keeping it separate preserves the two-level design-decision pattern and is tracked by its own issue.

Test plan

• Scope verification: git diff origin/main --stat — exactly 1 file (Governance/processes/RFC_PROCESS.md), nothing outside Governance/
• Factual grounding: statements cross-checked against Governance/CHARTER.md, Governance/README.md, and the hotfix process in Governance/processes/HOTFIX.md
• Formatter / linter / type-check / unit tests / production build: not executed locally — per the engagement's instruction no validation commands (test, build, lint, etc.) were run in this environment. The change is documentation-only; CI runs the full gate suite (type-check, lint, build, test, security-audit) on the PR.

Env vars / Notes

No environment variables or configuration keys are introduced. Change confined to Governance/.

[drips-wave]

@ameeribro4-sudo Great news! 🎉 Based on an automated assessment of this PR, the linked Wave issue(s) no longer count against your application limits.

You can now already apply to more issues while waiting for a review of this PR. Keep up the great work! 🚀

Learn more about application limits

[RUKAYAT-CODER]

Thank you for contributing to the project.