While working on the release of the CDK v2 Experimental Modules, I found myself looking for a place to document and discuss some of the customer-facing decisions being made (e.g., package naming, versioning, Changelog organization). Unfortunately, the current state of RFC 249 does not lend itself well to this format (IMO); the RFC as-is is more implementation-focused and more heavily leans towards the why of many of the decisions. While absolutely useful context, it doesn't read as much as a working-backwards document as I'd like.

My mental model to solve this was to copy (and save!) this really useful decision-making document, and replace the main RFC body with a series of working-backwards artifacts that (hopefully?) capture the customer experience of working with the alpha/unstable modules.

We don't usually go back and update old RFCs, so I recognize maybe this isn't the correct approach. I am very open to feedback on whether (a) this is useful; and (b) this is the best way to go about documenting these decisions.

Apologies for the ugly diff. I'd recommend opening up the rendered version of the new RFC to review, rather than viewing the diff directly.

[Rendered Version]

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache-2.0 license