undefined | Better HN

0 pointssamuelstros3mo ago0 comments

> RFC Hub has so much functionality that it's difficult to explain it all on the homepage

That's what I meant with overwhelming / too niche.

It seems like you intend to productize the RFC process e2e. But most "time consuming" parts of an RFC process is the human stuff "Did you read this?" "Did you update the RFC again?" etc. That back-and-forth seems to be expressed by all the features you have in RFC Hub but:

1. That makes RFC hub complicated.

2. Requires buy-in from every party to participate in all of RFC hubs feature like "Yes, I reviewed it and pressed the reviewed button in RFC Hub"

1 & 2 combined make RFC Hub (likely) a very niche product. New users are overwhelmed. Existing users need to onboard new users (their collegues) though. Otherwise, the RFC process will fallback to just DMs on Slack. Only a few teams will have sufficient buy in from all team members.

0 comments

tlhunter3mo ago

I agree that adoption will likely be difficult. Basically the larger the engineering org the greater the benefit. If a company only has a few proposals a year then RFC Hub is mostly just friction.

I've worked at a few companies with thousands of engineers and where I've had to review hundreds of proposals. That's where the product really shines. Of course I do want it to be useful to smaller orgs as well. Adding Google auth should help reduce signup friction.

As another person on here put it, RFC Hub will benefit from automated importing of proposals. To be maximally beneficial all engineers at a company need to have an account and all RFCs need to be in RFC Hub. It almost requires a top down mandate which is bad. I do hope to make it incrementally beneficial for smaller teams.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse