chore: improve contributing guidelines

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -1,96 +1,243 @@
-# Contributing to AsyncAPI
-We love your input! We want to make contributing to this project as easy and transparent as possible, whether it's:
-
-- Reporting a bug
-- Discussing the current state of the specification
-- Submitting a fix
-- Proposing new features
-
-## Summary of the contribution flow
-
-The following is a summary of the ideal contribution flow. Please, note that Pull Requests can also be rejected by the maintainers when appropriate.
-
-```
-    ┌───────────────────────┐
-    │                       │
-    │    Open an issue      │
-    │  (a bug report or a   │
-    │   feature request)    │
-    │                       │
-    └───────────────────────┘
-               ⇩
-    ┌───────────────────────┐
-    │                       │
-    │  Open a Pull Request  │
-    │   (only after issue   │
-    │     is approved)      │
-    │                       │
-    └───────────────────────┘
-               ⇩
-    ┌───────────────────────┐
-    │                       │
-    │   Your changes will   │
-    │     be merged and     │
-    │ published on the next │
-    │        release        │
-    │                       │
-    └───────────────────────┘
-```
-
-## Code of Conduct
-AsyncAPI has adopted a Code of Conduct that we expect project participants to adhere to. Please [read the full text](./CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) so that you can understand what sort of behaviour is expected.
-
-## Our Development Process
-We use Github to host code, to track issues and feature requests, as well as accept pull requests.
-
-## Issues
-[Open an issue](https://github.com/asyncapi/asyncapi/issues/new) **only** if you want to report a bug or a feature. Don't open issues for questions or support, instead join our [Slack workspace](https://www.asyncapi.com/slack-invite) and ask there. It's more likely you'll get help, and much faster!
-
-## Bug Reports
-**Great Bug Reports** tend to have:
-
-- A quick summary and/or background.
-- Steps to reproduce:
-  - Be specific!
-  - Give sample document if you can.
-- What you expected would happen.
-- What actually happens.
-- Notes (possibly including why you think this might be happening, or stuff you tried that didn't work.)
-
-People **love** thorough bug reports.
-
-## Feature Requests
-**Great Feature Requests** tend to have:
-
-- A quick summary and/or background.
-- Why you think this should be part of the specification instead of providing the same value as a vendor extension.
-- Provide one or more sample documents demonstrating how it would look like if implemented. Don't worry about the quality of the proposal at this point, this is just to make it easier for everyone to understand what you're asking for.
-- Notes (something else you want to tell us.)
-
-## Issue Triage
-Here are some tags that we're using to better organize issues in this repo:
-
-* `good first issue` - Good candidates for someone new to the project to contribute.
-* `help wanted` - Issues that should be addressed and which we would welcome a
-PR for but may need significant investigation or work.
-* `backlog` - The issue has been taken into account but maintainers decided not to implement it yet.
-PR for but may need significant investigation or work.
-* `documentation` - Relating to improving documentation for the project.
-* `bug` - The issue is a bug report.
-* `feature request` - Issue asking for a specific feature that's currently missing. **Please, note that applying this label to an issue doesn't mean it's gonna be implemented**.
-* `investigate further` - The issue requires further investigation. This might be related to the complexity and/or risk of implementing it.
-* `vX.X.X` - The issue will be released in this version. E.g., `v2.0.0` means the issue will be part of AsyncAPI 2.0.0.
-
-## Pull Requests
-**Please, make sure you open an issue before starting with a Pull Request, unless it's a typo or a really obvious error.** Pull requests are the best way to propose changes to the specification (we use [Github Flow](https://guides.github.com/introduction/flow/index.html)). We actively welcome your pull requests:
-
-1. Fork the repo and create your branch from `master`.
-2. If you've updated the specification, update the [schema](./schema/asyncapi.json) too, and vice-versa.
-3. Ensure the test suite passes (run `npm test`).
-4. Issue that pull request!
-
-## License
-When you submit changes, your submissions are understood to be under the same [Apache 2.0 License](https://github.com/asyncapi/asyncapi/blob/master/LICENSE) that covers the project. Feel free to [contact the maintainers](https://www.asyncapi.com/slack-invite) if that's a concern.
+# AsyncAPI Specification Contribution Guide
+
+AsyncAPI is an evolving language. This repository contains the
+specification text as well as Pull Requests with suggested improvements and
+contributions.
+
+Contributions that do not change the interpretation of the spec but instead
+improve legibility, fix editorial errors, clear up ambiguity and improve
+examples are encouraged and are often merged by a spec Committer with
+little process.
+
+However, contributions that _do_ meaningfully change the interpretation of the
+spec must follow an RFC (Request For Comments) process led by a *[champion](#champion-definition)*
+through a series of *stages* intended to improve *visibility*, allow for
+*discussion* to reach the best solution, and arrive at *consensus*. This process
+becomes even more important as AsyncAPI's community broadens.
+
+When proposing or weighing-in on any issue or pull request, consider the
+[Code of Conduct](https://github.com/asyncapi/.github/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)
+to better understand expected and unacceptable behavior.
+
+
+## Contributing to AsyncAPI Libraries
+
+A common point of confusion for those who wish to contribute to AsyncAPI is where
+to start. In fact, you may have found yourself here after attempting to make an
+improvement to an AsyncAPI library. Should a new addition be made to the AsyncAPI
+spec first or an AsyncAPI library first? Admittedly, this can become a bit of a
+[chicken-or-egg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg) dilemma.
+
+AsyncAPI libraries seek to be "spec compliant", which means they discourage
+changes that cause them to behave differently from the spec as written. However,
+they also encourage pull requests for changes that accompany an RFC *proposal*
+or RFC *draft*. In fact, a spec contribution RFC won't be *accepted* until it
+has experience being implemented in an AsyncAPI library.
+
+To allow a library to remain spec compliant while also implementing *proposals*
+and *drafts*, the library's maintainers may request that these new features are
+disabled by default with opt-in option flags or they may simply wait to merge a
+well-tested pull request until the spec proposal is *accepted*.
+
+
+## Guiding Principles
+
+AsyncAPI's evolution is guided by a few principles. Suggested contributions
+should use these principles to guide the details of an RFC and decisions to
+move forward.
+
+* **Favor no change**
+
+  As AsyncAPI is implemented in many languages under the collaboration
+  of a lot of individuals, incorporating any change has a high cost.
+  Accordingly, proposed changes must meet a very high bar of added value.
+  The burden of proof is on the contributor to illustrate this value.
+
+* **Enable new capabilities motivated by real use cases**
+
+  Every change should intend on unlocking a real and reasonable use case. Real
+  examples are always more compelling than theoretical ones, and common
+  scenarios are more compelling than rare ones. RFCs should do more than offer
+  a different way to reach an already achievable outcome.
+
+* **Simplicity and consistency over expressiveness and terseness**
+
+  "Possible but awkward" is often favored over more complex
+  alternatives. Simplicity (e.g. fewer concepts) is more important than
+  expressing more sophisticated ideas or writing less.
+
+* **Preserve option value**
+
+  It's hard to know what the future brings; whenever possible, decisions should
+  be made that allow for more options in the future. Sometimes this is
+  unintuitive: spec rules often begin more strict than necessary with a future
+  option to loosen when motivated by a real use case.
+
+* **Understandability is just as important as correctness**
+
+  The AsyncAPI spec, despite describing technical behavior, is intended to be
+  read by people. Use natural tone and include motivation and examples.
+
+
+## RFC Contribution Champions
+
+Contributing to AsyncAPI requires a lot of dedicated work. To set clear
+expectations and provide accountability, each proposed RFC (request for
+comments) must have a *champion* who is responsible for addressing feedback and
+completing next steps. An RFC may have multiple *champions*. The spec Committers
+are not responsible for completing RFCs which lack a *champion* (though a
+Committer may be a *champion* for an RFC).
+
+An RFC which does not have a *champion* may not progress through stages, and can
+become stale. Stale proposals may be picked up by a new *champion* or may
+be *rejected*.
+
+
+## RFC Contribution Stages
+
+RFCs are guided by a *champion* through a series of stages: *strawman*,
+*proposal*, *draft*, and *accepted* (or *rejected*), each of which has suggested
+entrance criteria and next steps detailed below. RFCs typically advance one
+stage at a time, but may advance multiple stages at a time. Stage
+advancements occur on GitHub.
+
+In general, it's preferable to start with a pull request so that we can best
+evaluate the RFC in detail. However, starting with an issue is also permitted if
+the full details are not worked out.
+
+All RFCs start as either a *strawman* or *proposal*.
+
+## Stage 0: *Strawman*
+
+An RFC at the *strawman* stage captures a described problem or
+partially-considered solutions. A *strawman* does not need to meet any entrance
+criteria. A *strawman's* goal is to prove or disprove a problem and guide
+discussion towards either rejection or a preferred solution. A *strawman* may
+be an issue or a pull request (though an illustrative pull request is preferrable).
+
+*There is no entrance criteria for a Strawman*
+
+As implied by the name [strawman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_proposal),
+the goal at this stage is to knock it down (*reject*) by considering other
+possible related solutions, showing that the motivating problem can be solved
+with no change to the specification, or that it is not aligned with the
+*guiding principles*.
+
+Once determined that the *strawman* is compelling, it should seek the entrance
+criteria for *proposal*.
+
+
+## Stage 1: *Proposal*
+
+An RFC at the *proposal* stage is a solution to a problem with enough fidelity
+to be discussed in detail. It must be backed by a willing *champion*. A
+*proposal*'s goal is to make a compelling case for acceptance by describing
+both the problem and the solution via examples and spec edits. A *proposal*
+should be a pull request.
+
+*Entrance criteria:*
+
+* Identified *champion*
+* Clear explanation of problem and solution
+* Illustrative examples
+* Incomplete spec edits
+* Identification of potential concerns, challenges, and drawbacks
+
+A *proposal* is subject to the same discussion as a *strawman*: ensuring that it
+is well aligned with the *guiding principles*, is a problem worth solving, and
+is the preferred solution to that problem. A *champion* is not expected to have
+confidence in every detail at this stage and should instead focus on identifying
+and resolving issues and edge-cases. To better understand the technical
+ramifications of the *proposal*, a *champion* is encouraged to implement it in a
+AsyncAPI library.
+
+Most *proposals* are expected to evolve or change and may be rejected. Therefore,
+it is unwise to rely on a *proposal* in a production environment. AsyncAPI
+libraries *may* implement *proposals*, though are encouraged to not enable the
+*proposed* feature without explicit opt-in.
+
+
+## Stage 2: *Draft*
+
+An RFC at the *draft* stage is a fully formed solution. There is
+consensus the problem identified should be solved, and this particular solution
+is preferred. A *draft's* goal is to precisely and completely describe the
+solution and resolve any concerns through library implementations. A *draft*
+must be a pull request.
+
+*Entrance criteria:*
+
+* Consensus the solution is preferred
+* Resolution of identified concerns and challenges
+* Precisely described with spec edits
+* Compliant implementation in [AsyncAPI JS Parser](https://www.github.com/asyncapi/parser-js) (might not be merged)
+
+A *proposal* becomes a *draft* when the set of problems or drawbacks have been
+fully considered and accepted or resolved, and the solution is deemed
+desirable. A *draft*'s goal is to complete final spec edits that are ready to
+be merged and implement the *draft* in AsyncAPI libraries along with tests to
+gain confidence that the spec text is sufficient.
+
+*Drafts* may continue to evolve and change, occasionally dramatically, and are
+not guaranteed to be accepted. Therefore, it is unwise to rely on a *draft* in a
+production environment. AsyncAPI libraries *should* implement *drafts* to
+provide valuable feedback, though are encouraged not to enable the *draft*
+feature without explicit opt-in when possible.
+
+
+## Stage 3: *Accepted*
+
+An RFC at the *accepted* stage is a completed solution. According to a spec
+Committer it is ready to be merged as-is into the spec document. The RFC is
+ready to be deployed in AsyncAPI libraries. An *accepted* RFC must be
+implemented in the [AsyncAPI JS Parser](https://www.github.com/asyncapi/parser-js).
+
+*Entrance criteria:*
+
+* Consensus the solution is complete
+* Complete spec edits, including examples and prose
+* Compliant implementation in [AsyncAPI JS Parser](https://www.github.com/asyncapi/parser-js) (fully tested and merged or ready to merge)
+
+A *draft* is *accepted* when the Committers have been convinced via
+implementations and tests that it appropriately handles all edge cases; that the
+spec changes not only precisely describe the new syntax and semantics but
+include sufficient motivating prose and examples; and that the RFC includes
+edits to any other affected areas of the spec. Once *accepted*, its *champion*
+should encourage adoption of the RFC by opening issues or pull requests on other
+popular AsyncAPI libraries.
+
+An *accepted* RFC is merged into the AsyncAPI spec's master branch by a Committer
+and will be included in the next released revision.
+
+
+## Stage X: *Rejected*
+
+An RFC may be *rejected* at any point and for any reason. Most rejections occur
+when a *strawman* is proven to be unnecessary, is misaligned with the *guiding
+principles*, or fails to meet the entrance criteria to become a *proposal*.
+A *proposal* may become *rejected* for similar reasons as well as if it fails to
+reach consensus or loses the confidence of its *champion*. Likewise a *draft*
+may encounter unforeseen issues during implementations which cause it to lose
+consensus or the confidence of its *champion*.
+
+RFCs which have lost a *champion* will not be *rejected* immediately, but may
+become *rejected* if they fail to attract a new *champion*.
+
+Once *rejected*, an RFC will typically not be reconsidered. Reconsideration is
+possible if a *champion* believes the original reason for rejection no longer
+applies due to new circumstances or new evidence.
+
+## Champion definition
+
+A champion is anyone who leads the work on an RFC. It doesn't
+mean it has to be the only person working on it though. They
+are a "person of reference" for a given RFC implementation and
+may or may not know about JS, relying on the help of other
+community members to implement the RFC on the
+[JS Parser](https://www.github.com/asyncapi/parser-js).
+
+
+
 
 ## References
-This document was adapted from the open-source contribution guidelines for [Facebook's Draft](https://github.com/facebook/draft-js/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md).
+This document was adapted from the [GraphQL Specification Contribution Guide](https://github.com/graphql/graphql-spec/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md).