0016 Open decisions, periodic reviews and RFC reviews

Context#

Three pages list records against a date: /backlog/, /reviews/ and /rfc-reviews/. They were added one at a time, and in English two of them were called “Reviews” and “RFC reviews” while the first one was titled “Review backlog”. Readers took them for three views of the same list. They are not: each answers a different question for a different person, and the word “review” means something else on each.

Decision#

The sidebar, the header and the landing page name the pages after the question they answer:

Page	Label	Question
`/backlog/`	Open decisions	What still waits for a decision?
`/reviews/`	Periodic reviews	Is a decision we made still right?
`/rfc-reviews/`	RFC reviews	Who still has to review a proposal?

The URLs stay as they are, so existing links keep working.

How to use it#

Which records each page lists#

	Open decisions	Periodic reviews	RFC reviews
Statuses	`open: true` (`draft`, `proposed`, `in-review`)	`reviews.statuses`, else `current: true` (`accepted`, `implemented`)	`open: true`
Also needs	nothing	a due date: `reviewBy`, or the last `reviewed` date (else the record’s `date`) plus an interval from `reviewEvery` on the record or its project, or `reviews.every`	`reviewers` in front matter
Date it sorts by	`reviewBy`, the deadline for the decision	the next review date	`reviewBy`
Groups	with a deadline, then “No deadline”	Overdue, Due soon, Scheduled	Waiting on you, In review, Changes requested, Approved
Linked when	always	any record has a schedule	any open record has reviewers

Where they overlap#

Every record on RFC reviews is also on Open decisions, because both list open records only. Open decisions shows such a record with a small review chip (“Review: 2 of 3 approvals”); RFC reviews adds the reviewers’ states and the “Waiting on you” view for the person reading.

Periodic reviews shares nothing with the other two under the default statuses: once a record is accepted it leaves Open decisions and RFC reviews, and if it has a schedule it appears on Periodic reviews. Putting an open status into reviews.statuses is the only way a record shows on all three.

reviewBy is read differently depending on the status. On an open record it is the deadline for the decision; on a decided record it is the date of the next periodic review.

A record’s way through the pages#

flowchart LR
  draft["proposed + reviewBy"] -->|"Open decisions"| rev["+ reviewers"]
  rev -->|"Open decisions + RFC reviews"| acc["accepted + reviewEvery"]
  acc -->|"Periodic reviews"| acc

An RFC is written with status: proposed and reviewBy: 2026-11-15. It is on Open decisions.
reviewers: [ann, marek] is added. It stays on Open decisions and appears on RFC reviews, where it shows under “Waiting on you” for whichever of them picks themselves on that page.
It is accepted with reviewEvery: 1 year, and the proposal’s reviewBy is removed. It leaves both pages and appears on Periodic reviews, due a year after its date. A reviewBy left in place would be read as the review date instead, so the record would show as overdue from 15 November.

Consequences#

Each page keeps one meaning, so a reader who lands on it from a link knows which question it answers.
The URL /backlog/ no longer matches its English label. Changing it would break links people already shared.
A site whose config lists landing.actions with the old “Backlog” text keeps that text until the config is changed.

0016: Open decisions, periodic reviews and RFC reviews