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

Governance/processes/RFC_PROCESS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+# RFC Process
+
+## Purpose
+
+This process defines when an RFC (Request for Comments) is required for TeachLink
+Web, the stages a proposal moves through, and the criteria used to accept or
+reject it. It gives contributors a predictable path to propose design changes and
+gives maintainers a structured way to evaluate them before implementation work
+begins.
+
+## Scope
+
+This process applies to design changes to this repository and to governance
+changes proposed through the `Governance/` folder. Small, bounded fixes follow
+the normal issue and pull request flow and do not need an RFC.
+
+## When an RFC Is Required
+
+An RFC is required before implementation when a change is structural, costly to
+reverse, or affects how contributors work:
+
+- A change to public or internal API contracts, response shapes, or the data
+  paths the frontend relies on from `teachLink_backend`.
+- A new subsystem or architectural direction (state management, realtime
+  delivery, offline behavior, rendering strategy) that will span multiple areas
+  of the codebase.
+- A change to governance, roles, or the contributor workflow that lives in the
+  `Governance/` folder and changes how the project is run.
+- A change with a material effect on security, privacy, accessibility, or the
+  availability of the service.
+- A change that removes or renames a user-facing capability or a public
+  interface that other contributors depend on.
+
+An RFC is **not** required for bug fixes, small UI changes, dependency updates,
+or incremental improvements that follow an established pattern already covered by
+an accepted design. When in doubt, a one-paragraph outline in the issue is
+enough for a maintainer to confirm whether an RFC is required.
+
+## RFC Lifecycle
+
+An RFC moves through the following stages. Each stage has a clear owner and an
+exit criterion.
+
+### 1. Idea
+
+The author describes the problem and the proposed direction in a GitHub issue.
+The exit criterion is confirmation that the change is in scope and that an RFC is
+required.
+
+- **Owner:** author.
+- **Exit criterion:** a maintainer confirms the RFC is warranted, or the idea is
+  closed.
+
+### 2. Draft
+
+The author writes the RFC using the RFC template, including the metadata header
+(stage, author, owners, creation date) and the required sections. The draft is
+open for early, low-volume feedback but is not yet a call for review.
+
+- **Owner:** author, with early feedback invited.
+- **Exit criterion:** the author considers the draft complete and requests
+  review.
+
+### 3. Open for Comment
+
+The RFC is shared for community and maintainer review. Discussion happens in the
+RFC's own thread so the full reasoning is preserved. The author updates the RFC
+in response to feedback and records unresolved objections rather than silently
+dropping them.
+
+- **Owner:** author and reviewers; maintainers steer the discussion.
+- **Exit criterion:** a review period has elapsed and open questions are either
+  answered or explicitly marked as unresolved objections.
+
+### 4. Decision
+
+Maintainers decide to accept or reject the RFC using the acceptance and rejection
+criteria below. The decision is recorded in the RFC's thread.
+
+- **Owner:** maintainers.
+- **Exit criterion:** a written decision with reasoning.
+
+### 5. Implemented or Ended
+
+Accepted RFCs are implemented through the normal issue and pull request flow,
+referencing the RFC. Rejected, superseded, or withdrawn RFCs are marked with
+their terminal state and kept as a record.
+
+- **Owner:** author and implementers for accepted RFCs; maintainers for terminal
+  states.
+- **Exit criterion:** the change ships with the RFC referenced, or the RFC is
+  closed in a terminal state.
+
+## Acceptance and Rejection Criteria
+
+An RFC is **accepted** when:
+
+- It states the problem, the proposed change, and the alternatives considered.
+- It explains how the change serves the project's values and measurable outcomes
+  from the governance foundations.
+- It identifies the affected areas, the integration seam with the backend and
+  contract layers, and any migration or compatibility cost.
+- Open objections that materially affect users or maintainability are resolved.
+- The scope of the RFC is confirmed to be within the project's scope statement.
+
+An RFC is **rejected** when:
+
+- The problem it addresses is out of scope or already covered.
+- The reasoning relies on assumptions that reviewers demonstrate to be unsafe or
+  unsupported.
+- The change cannot be migrated safely or lands without a compatibility path.
+- Maintainable alternatives exist that better serve users or the long-term
+  health of the project.
+- The discussion reaches a decision consistent with the project's decision-making
+  governance that does not support the proposal.
+
+## Ownership
+
+- Maintainers own this process and make the final decision on acceptance and
+  rejection.
+- Authors own the RFC document through its lifecycle and the issue or pull
+  request that implements an accepted RFC.
+- Changes to this process are proposed in a pull request that touches only the
+  `Governance/` folder.
+
+## Success
+
+This process succeeds when significant changes are designed and reviewed before
+large implementation effort is spent, when decisions are recorded with their
+reasoning, and when authors can predict with confidence whether their proposal
+will be accepted.