From 37fa84b8d45e37629454202bfbd4f5432b65fc3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jean Burellier <jean.burellier@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2025 21:29:06 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] feat: rfc for reusable workflows naming repository

---
 docs/rfc/0002-workflows-governance.md | 157 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 157 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/rfc/0002-workflows-governance.md

diff --git a/docs/rfc/0002-workflows-governance.md b/docs/rfc/0002-workflows-governance.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2265bf7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/rfc/0002-workflows-governance.md
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+# Naming and Governance for the Central Repository of Reusable GitHub Actions
+
+## Summary
+
+This RFC proposes selecting an official repository name for hosting all shared and reusable GitHub Actions workflows used across the Express.js organization.
+
+This RFC also proposes the creation of a new **Infrastructure Working Group (WG)** responsible for governing CI/CD standards, maintaining shared workflows, and ensuring consistent automation practices across all Express.js repositories.
+
+## Motivation
+
+To support recent RFCs around unified CI/CD and shared publishing workflows, the Express.js organization needs a **central, authoritative repository** for reusable GitHub Actions.
+
+Today, no such repository exists, which leads to:
+
+- Inconsistent naming conventions
+- Repetition of similar workflows across repositories
+- Fragmentation of CI/CD standards
+- No clear ownership for shared automation tooling
+- Difficulty onboarding contributors and maintainers
+
+By choosing a clear, purpose-driven repository name with **`ci-workflows` proposed as the default**, we strengthen discoverability, consistency, and long-term governance.
+
+Additionally, establishing an **Infrastructure WG** provides ongoing stewardship to ensure maintainers do not drift into divergent workflow configurations.
+
+## Detailed Explanation
+
+### Role of the Central "CI Workflows" Repository
+
+The repository will host:
+
+- Reusable workflows under `.github/workflows/*`
+- Reusable actions under `.github/actions/*`
+- Documentation and usage examples
+- Versioned workflow releases (`v1`, `v2`, …)
+- Organization-wide guidance for CI, publishing, and automation standards
+
+### Role of the Infrastructure Working Group (WG)
+
+The Infrastructure WG will be responsible for:
+
+- Developing shared CI/CD standards
+- Maintaining the central workflows repository
+- Reviewing proposals and PRs for CI-related changes
+- Managing security concerns (tokens, least-privilege permissions)
+- Ensuring alignment with Node.js LTS support policies
+
+This WG would include maintainers and contributors who actively work on CI/CD, release engineering, or build tooling.
+
+## Naming Options
+
+Below are several naming options, with **`ci-workflows`** recommended as the leading candidate.
+
+### Option A — `expressjs/ci-workflows` (Recommended)
+
+**Pros:**
+
+- Very clear purpose: CI + reusable workflows
+- Short, memorable, and easy to type
+- Emphasizes the workflow-first focus
+- Extensible enough to include publish workflows and automation
+- Consistent with naming used by many OSS projects
+
+**Cons:**
+
+- Does not explicitly reference "actions"
+
+### Option B — `expressjs/workflows`
+
+**Pros:**
+
+- Broad and flexible
+- May include templates, actions, workflows, and automation
+
+**Cons:**
+
+- Less explicit about CI/CD purpose
+
+### Option C — `expressjs/actions-workflows`
+
+**Pros:**
+
+- Extremely explicit: includes both actions and workflows
+- Easy for contributors to identify purpose
+
+**Cons:**
+
+- Long and slightly redundant name
+
+### Option D — `expressjs/infra-workflows`
+
+**Pros:**
+
+- Aligns with the concept of an Infrastructure WG
+- Suggests broader automation responsibility
+
+**Cons:**
+
+- “Infra” may be interpreted as runtime or hosting infrastructure
+
+### Option E — `expressjs/.github`
+
+**Pros:**
+
+- Standard GitHub convention followed by Node.js and others
+- Automatically supports global templates
+
+**Cons:**
+
+- Less discoverable for CI/CD-specific workflows
+- Repository may become cluttered over time
+
+## Rationale and Alternatives
+
+- A consistent naming standard improves visibility and contributor onboarding
+- One repository prevents fragmentation of workflow logic
+- A dedicated WG provides clarity, governance, and sustainability
+
+Alternatives were considered but either lacked clarity, were overly broad, or did not express the CI/CD focus as well as `ci-workflows`.
+
+## Implementation
+
+### Step 1 — Approve Repository Name
+
+Consensus among maintainers is required before creation.
+
+### Step 2 — Create the Repository
+
+The repository should include:
+
+- README explaining purpose
+- Contribution guidelines
+- Actions and workflows directories
+- Versioning strategy for reusable workflows
+
+### Step 3 — Establish the Infrastructure WG
+
+Define:
+
+- Charter and responsibilities
+- Membership and contribution rules
+- Review and approval processes
+
+### Step 4 — Adopt and Migrate
+
+- Move reusable workflows to `ci-workflows`
+- Update repositories to reference shared workflows
+- Document usage in CONTRIBUTING.md
+
+## Prior Art
+
+- Multiple OSS projects maintain central workflow repositories
+- GitHub endorses reusable workflows for multi-repo consistency
+- Large OSS ecosystems often use a CI-dedicated repository for clarity and governance
+
+## Unresolved Questions
+
+N/A