Technical proposals
On this page 9 topics
Overview
Topics
- Problem framing
- RFCs
- evidence
- alternatives
Learn first
4 h of practice (estimate)
Learning outcomes
- Frame the problem so readers agree it is worth solving before reading the solution.
- Write an RFC with evidence, alternatives, costs, and risks that invites useful critique.
- Run the review: circulate early, respond to comments, and reach a decision.
- Write for several audiences: engineers, managers, and executives.
Lessons
Lab and exercises
Lab
STF-012-LAB1 · Golden-path RFC
Outcomes: 1–4 · Time: ~4 h
- Write the problem statement for the Platform 2.0 golden path using the STF-009 baseline; test it with two skeptical readers.
- Write the RFC: goals and non-goals, proposal, at least three alternatives including "do nothing", costs, risks, rollout, open questions, decision needed.
- Add the layered reading paths for executives, managers, and engineers.
- Pre-circulate, then publish with a review window and a named decision maker.
- Run the review with role-played reviewers; respond to every comment and close with a recorded decision.
Acceptance: decision recorded within the review window; major objections answered in the document.
Exercises (case-based; six exercises)
| ID | Outcome | Task |
|---|---|---|
| STF-012-EX01 | 1 | Rewrite the opening of a solution-first RFC ("We should adopt Backstage") as a problem statement with who is hurt, how much, and what happens if nothing is done. |
| STF-012-EX02 | 2 | Given a draft with no alternatives, write a comparison of three options plus "do nothing" on cost, time, risk, and team effort. |
| STF-012-EX03 | 2 | List the costs and risks an RFC for the golden path must state openly and the mitigation for each. |
| STF-012-EX04 | 3 | Plan the review: reviewers to pre-brief, review window, decision maker, and what you do with a late blocking comment. |
| STF-012-EX05 | 3 | Sort 12 sample comments into blocking and non-blocking and write responses to three. |
| STF-012-EX06 | 4 | Write the same proposal summary three times: for an engineer, a manager, and the CFO. |
Show solutions
- EX01 "Twenty teams run separate pipelines; a new service takes three weeks to reach production and pipeline drift caused four audit findings. Without change, both grow with the team count." Solution comes later.
- EX02 Table with do nothing (no cost, problem grows), extend current pipelines (medium cost, still fragmented), golden path (higher upfront, lowest ongoing), vendor tool (license cost, less fit). Recommend with explicit reasons.
- EX03 Costs: migration effort per team, platform team capacity, reduced local freedom. Risks: low adoption, single point of failure, slow platform releases. Mitigations: pilot, escape hatch, SLOs and a support model.
- EX04 Pre-brief the two toughest tech leads and security; two-week window; named decision maker; late blockers are logged and answered if new, otherwise recorded as dissent.
- EX05 Blocking: security gap, missing rollback, data residency. Non-blocking: naming, doc style. Respond with a change, a reasoned rejection, or an owner and date.
- EX06 Engineer: design and trade-offs; manager: effort per team, timeline, support; CFO: cost, expected saving, risk, decision needed by date.
Outcome 3 is also covered by the lab review; outcome 4 by the lab layered paths.
Workplace evidence: an RFC you wrote that changed how several teams work.
Quiz
Outcomes: O1 problem framing · O2 evidence, alternatives, costs, risks · O3 running the review · O4 writing for several audiences.
A self-check for you: nothing is graded, saved or sent anywhere. Choose an answer, then check it. You can try again as often as you like.
Practical part
Six case exercises STF-012-EX01 to EX06 plus the lab, assessed with the RFC quality rubric and the review outcome. Pass: at least five of six exercises correct, quiz at least 8/10, and a recorded decision within the review window with major objections answered in the document.
Common mistakes
Solution-first proposals; hiding the costs; never closing the review.
Assessment
RFC quality rubric and review outcome.
Workplace evidence
An RFC you wrote that changed how several teams work.
Career relevance
Architecture deliverables and ADRs (ARC-034).