Some thoughts:
I think @withoutboats is correct that a given RFC may address or partially address several problems, so it makes sense to separate those two things out. But I still think there is a need for a space in between problem and final solution, which is what we are trying to introduce (to some extent, you could view issues on the RFC repo as “problems” and PRs as “solutions”). This space is sort of “draft solution”.
(I admit I am still not entirely sure what it will mean to write a motivation without any solution in mind. At least when I work on RFCs, I find that the two blend together a bit – the motivation is a good place to introduce the problems and try to describe the solution.)
On a very procedural note, one thing that bothers me today is that we no good single link to give for a particular RFC. I think it’d be awesome if we changed the format of RFC PRs so that they had no discussion. Instead, they were a collection of links:
- to the issues about the problems being solved;
- to the issue about the motivation for this RFC;
- to a discuss thread (or multiple such threads) for discussing the RFC itself;
- perhaps multiple threads, with summaries given where relevant;
- if the RFC is accepted, a link to the final text in the repo itself;
- if the RFC is not accepted, a link to the final rational