Writing Effective RFCs: A Principal Engineer's Guide to Technical Decision Making

You know that moment when you're three months into implementing what seemed like a straightforward feature, and suddenly everyone has strong opinions about database schema choices? That's usually when I wish we'd written an RFC.

After two decades of watching brilliant engineers debate the same architectural decisions in Slack threads that span weeks, seeing great ideas die in committee, and yes, implementing systems that everyone "agreed" on but somehow interpreted differently—I've learned that the RFC process isn't about documentation. It's about turning technical chaos into collaborative clarity.

Let me share what I've learned about writing RFCs that actually drive decisions, using a real example that recently came across my desk: a user notification system RFC that showcases both the power and pitfalls of this process.

Why RFCs Actually Matter (Beyond the Obvious)#

Most engineers think RFCs are about documenting decisions. That's like saying meetings are about talking. The real value lies in the process—forcing yourself and your team to think through problems systematically before you're knee-deep in implementation details.

I've seen too many "quick wins" turn into architectural debt that teams are still paying off three years later. The notification system RFC I'm referencing (which eventually became our 4-part implementation series) perfectly illustrates this. What started as "just add some push notifications" quickly revealed itself as a complex system touching authentication, real-time infrastructure, user preferences, analytics, and compliance.

The Real Problems RFCs Solve#

Stakeholder Alignment: Ever notice how everyone nods in the planning meeting, then builds completely different things? An RFC creates a single source of truth that's harder to misinterpret than "let's build a notification system."

Decision Archaeology: Six months after launch, when someone asks "why did we choose PostgreSQL over DynamoDB for preferences?", the RFC has your back. No more "I think Sarah mentioned something about ACID properties in that one Slack thread."

Scope Creep Defense: Nothing kills momentum like feature creep during implementation. A well-written RFC gives you permission to say "that's a great idea for v2" and actually mean it.

Cross-Team Communication: When your notification system needs to integrate with the mobile team's push infrastructure and the platform team's user management system, an RFC becomes your communication vehicle across organizational boundaries.

Anatomy of an RFC That Works#

Let's break down the notification system RFC structure and see why each section matters:

The Executive Summary: Your 30-Second Elevator Pitch#

We need to implement a robust, scalable user notification system that can handle 
real-time updates, push notifications, email notifications, and in-app 
notifications across our platform.

This opening line does something crucial—it establishes scope without drowning in technical details. I've seen RFCs start with database schema diagrams. Don't do that. Start with the business problem in language that both engineers and product managers can understand.

Problem Statement: Make the Pain Real#

The RFC's problem section doesn't just list technical limitations—it connects them to business impact:

• "Users miss important updates" leads to "reduced engagement and retention"
• "Manual notification sending" leads to "increased support tickets"
• "No analytics" leads to "inefficient feature rollout"

This isn't academic—it's storytelling. Make readers feel the problem before you show them the solution. When stakeholders understand why the current state hurts, they're more likely to support the resources needed for your proposed solution.

Technical Implementation: Show, Don't Just Tell#

Here's where the RFC really shines. Instead of abstract architecture discussions, it provides concrete examples:

-- Notification preferences with actual constraints
CREATE TABLE notification_preferences (
    user_id UUID REFERENCES users(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
    notification_type VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
    channel VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
    enabled BOOLEAN DEFAULT true,
    UNIQUE(user_id, notification_type, channel)
);

This level of detail forces you to think through edge cases. What happens when a user deletes their account? How do you prevent duplicate preferences? These aren't questions you want to discover during implementation.

The API design section goes beyond REST endpoints—it shows request/response examples, error handling, and authentication patterns. This precision eliminates the "I thought you meant..." conversations later.

The Missing Pieces Most RFCs Skip#

Implementation Phases: The RFC breaks the work into three phases over 12 weeks. This isn't just project management—it's risk management. Phase 1 delivers basic functionality, Phase 2 adds advanced features, and Phase 3 handles optimization. If budget gets cut or priorities shift, you still have a working system.

Cost Analysis: Real numbers matter. "$200-500/month for database costs" gives stakeholders concrete trade-offs to evaluate. "8 developer-weeks per phase" helps with resource planning. I've seen RFCs get approved, then stall when teams realize they needed four engineers but only budgeted for one.

Success Criteria: "99.9% notification delivery success rate" and "20% reduction in support tickets" aren't just metrics—they're commitments. Define success before you start building, not after you're trying to justify the investment.

The Human Side of RFC Writing#

Getting Buy-In: It's Not About Being Right#

The best RFC I ever wrote was one that got completely rewritten after the first review. Here's why that was a success story:

I proposed a microservices architecture for our notification system, complete with separate services for templates, delivery, and analytics. The feedback was brutal but constructive. The infrastructure team pointed out that we didn't have the operational maturity for that level of service complexity. The mobile team explained constraints I hadn't considered. The security team highlighted compliance requirements I'd missed.

The revised RFC kept the core functionality but simplified the architecture to a modular monolith with clear service boundaries. Six months later, we had a working system that we could confidently operate, and a clear path to break it apart as we scaled.

Lesson: Treat the first draft as a conversation starter, not a declaration. The RFC process is about collective intelligence, not individual brilliance.

Managing the Feedback Process#

Here's what I've learned about RFC reviews:

Time-box the discussion: Set a two-week comment period. Otherwise, perfectionism kills momentum. I've seen RFCs that spent six months in "review" while the business problem got worse.

Structure the feedback: Use GitHub issues, RFC comment systems, or structured review templates. Slack discussions get lost. Email threads become unwieldy. Make feedback traceable and actionable.

Address concerns directly: When someone raises an objection, don't dismiss it—engage with it. The notification system RFC changed its database choice from MongoDB to PostgreSQL based on consistency requirements. That feedback prevented a lot of operational headaches.

Know when to say no: Not every suggestion improves the proposal. Document why you rejected certain approaches, so the same discussions don't repeat in every review cycle.

When NOT to Write an RFC#

I've written RFCs for features that should have been prototypes, and prototypes for systems that deserved RFCs. Here's my mental model:

Write an RFC when:

• The decision affects multiple teams or systems
• The cost of changing direction later is high
• The solution involves new infrastructure or architectural patterns
• Stakeholders need to understand trade-offs to make resource decisions

Skip the RFC when:

• You're exploring an idea and need to learn by building
• The change is isolated to a single team's domain
• The implementation is straightforward with well-understood patterns
• Speed of iteration matters more than perfection of approach

For the notification system, an RFC was essential because it touched user experience, infrastructure, mobile apps, and third-party integrations. A simple bug fix or internal refactoring? Just start coding.

Common RFC Pitfalls (And How to Avoid Them)#

The Architecture Astronaut Trap#

The problem: RFCs that read like computer science papers, full of abstract patterns but light on practical implementation.

The fix: Include working code examples, specific technology choices, and concrete metrics. The notification system RFC doesn't just say "we'll use queues for scalability"—it specifies RabbitMQ or AWS SQS, explains retry policies, and defines throughput targets.

The Everything-to-Everyone Anti-Pattern#

The problem: Trying to address every possible use case in the first version, leading to analysis paralysis and scope explosion.

The fix: Be explicit about what you're not building. The RFC's "Future Enhancements" section is as important as the core implementation. AI-powered personalization and voice notifications are great ideas—for version 2.

The Technical Tunnel Vision#

The problem: RFCs that focus entirely on the technical solution while ignoring operational concerns, user impact, or business constraints.

The fix: Include sections on monitoring, security, testing, and cost analysis. The notification system RFC dedicates significant space to these areas because a technically perfect system that can't be operated or afforded is useless.

The Committee Design Syndrome#

The problem: RFCs that try to incorporate every piece of feedback, resulting in incoherent designs that satisfy no one.

The fix: Maintain design coherence. Sometimes you need to explain why a suggestion, while valid, doesn't fit the overall approach. Document these decisions so reviewers understand the reasoning.

RFCs in Different Organizational Contexts#

Startup Mode: Speed vs. Precision#

At early-stage companies, formal RFCs can feel like bureaucracy. But even a lightweight RFC process pays dividends. I've seen startups spend weeks rebuilding features because the first implementation made assumptions that later proved costly.

For startups, focus on:

• Clear problem definition
• Technical approach with alternatives considered
• Resource requirements and timeline
• Success criteria

Skip the extensive future planning and detailed operational procedures. You can always expand the RFC process as you grow.

Enterprise Context: Governance and Compliance#

At larger organizations, RFCs often need to navigate complex approval processes, compliance requirements, and cross-team dependencies. The notification system RFC's security and privacy sections weren't academic exercises—they were requirements for getting legal and compliance sign-off.

For enterprise contexts, include:

• Security and compliance implications
• Integration with existing systems
• Operational runbooks and monitoring
• Rollback and disaster recovery plans

Remote Teams: Async Decision Making#

When your team spans time zones, RFCs become even more critical. They enable asynchronous design discussions and ensure everyone has access to the same context. I've found that remote teams often produce better RFCs because the writing discipline forces clearer thinking.

For remote teams:

• Use structured comment systems with threading
• Set clear review timelines with timezone considerations
• Record synchronous RFC discussions for async participants
• Maintain decision logs with rationale

The Lifecycle of an RFC#

Pre-Writing: The Research Phase#

Before you open your editor, invest time in understanding the landscape:

Survey existing solutions: What's already been tried? The notification system RFC benefits from understanding how other companies solved similar problems. Don't reinvent wheels, but don't accept constraints that no longer apply.

Interview stakeholders: Talk to customer support about current pain points. Chat with mobile developers about push notification constraints. Understand the problem from multiple perspectives before proposing solutions.

Prototype key uncertainties: Some questions can't be answered on paper. If you're unsure about WebSocket performance characteristics, build a small proof-of-concept. If database schema design is contentious, model some realistic data.

Writing: Structure for Clarity#

I've found this structure works across different types of RFCs:

1. Executive Summary: One paragraph, business-focused
2. Problem Statement: Current pain points with business impact
3. Proposed Solution: High-level approach with alternatives considered
4. Technical Implementation: Detailed design with examples
5. Implementation Plan: Phases, timeline, resources
6. Operations and Monitoring: How to run and debug the system
7. Risks and Mitigation: What could go wrong and how to handle it
8. Success Criteria: Measurable outcomes
9. Future Considerations: What comes next

Post-Approval: The Implementation Reality Check#

The RFC isn't done when it's approved—it's a living document that should evolve with implementation realities. I've learned to schedule RFC review sessions at key implementation milestones. Sometimes you discover constraints or opportunities that change the design.

For the notification system, the original RFC assumed email delivery through a specific provider. During implementation, we discovered rate limiting issues that required a multi-provider approach. The RFC was updated to reflect this change, maintaining the single source of truth.

The Notification System RFC: A Case Study in Success#

Let's examine why this particular RFC worked well:

Clear Business Case: It connected technical implementation to user experience and business metrics. Stakeholders could understand why this mattered beyond engineering satisfaction.

Comprehensive Technical Design: Database schemas, API specifications, and implementation examples eliminated ambiguity. The mobile team knew exactly what endpoints they'd integrate with. The infrastructure team understood scaling requirements.

Realistic Planning: The 12-week, three-phase approach acknowledged that complex systems can't be built overnight. It also provided flexibility—if Phase 1 took longer than expected, Phase 2 could adapt.

Operational Awareness: Sections on monitoring, security, and cost analysis showed that the authors thought beyond just building the system—they considered running it in production.

The RFC led to our comprehensive blog series documenting the implementation journey, including the challenges and lessons learned along the way.

RFC Writing as a Leadership Skill#

Writing effective RFCs is fundamentally about leadership—technical leadership, specifically. You're not just designing systems; you're building consensus, managing complexity, and making trade-offs that affect the entire organization.

Some of the best technical leaders I've worked with are also the best RFC writers. They understand that great technical solutions must also be great business solutions. They can explain complex architectures in simple terms. They're comfortable being wrong and iterating based on feedback.

The Meta-Skill: Learning to Think in Systems#

RFC writing teaches you to think holistically about technical problems. You consider not just the happy path implementation, but edge cases, failure modes, operational concerns, and future evolution. This systems thinking transfers to other aspects of engineering leadership.

When you're in architecture reviews, you naturally ask about monitoring and alertability. When you're planning projects, you think about rollback strategies. When you're interviewing candidates, you explore their experience with production systems, not just algorithm design.

Looking Forward: RFCs in the AI Era#

As AI tools become more integrated into development workflows, RFCs become even more valuable. AI can generate code quickly, but it can't navigate organizational complexity, understand business context, or make nuanced trade-offs between technical approaches.

I've started experimenting with AI assistance in RFC writing—using tools to generate initial drafts of database schemas, to suggest alternative architectures, or to identify potential edge cases I might have missed. But the strategic thinking, stakeholder management, and design coherence remain deeply human skills.

Conclusion: From Documentation to Decision-Making#

The best RFCs I've written weren't masterpieces of technical documentation—they were catalysts for collaborative decision-making. They helped teams move from debating in circles to building systems that solved real problems.

The notification system RFC succeeded not because it was perfectly written, but because it created a framework for productive technical discussions. It turned abstract requirements into concrete implementation plans. It helped a distributed team stay aligned throughout a complex build.

Your next RFC won't be perfect either. But if it helps your team make better technical decisions, if it reduces the ambiguity that kills projects, if it bridges the gap between business needs and engineering solutions—then it's done its job.

The goal isn't to write perfect documents. The goal is to build better systems through better thinking. RFCs are just one tool for getting there, but they're a powerful one.

Now go write that RFC you've been putting off. Your future self—and your team—will thank you.

If you're interested in seeing how the notification system RFC translated into actual implementation, check out our 4-part deep dive series covering architecture, real-time delivery, production debugging, and analytics optimization.