From 44a465148ca5f31a611b0e892611166b0312ded9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Anton Pirker Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 10:04:23 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] rfc(decision): Document sensitive data collected --- README.md | 1 + .../0070-document-sensitive-data-collected.md | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+) create mode 100644 text/0070-document-sensitive-data-collected.md diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index e9d2786d..efe56398 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -30,3 +30,4 @@ This repository contains RFCs and DACIs. Lost? - [0047-introduce-profile-context](text/0047-introduce-profile-context.md): Add Profile Context - [0048-move-replayid-out-of-tags](text/0048-move-replayid-out-of-tags.md): Plan to replace freight with GoCD +- [0070-document-sensitive-data-collected](text/0070-document-sensitive-data-collected.md): Document sensitive data collected diff --git a/text/0070-document-sensitive-data-collected.md b/text/0070-document-sensitive-data-collected.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..6dba8316 --- /dev/null +++ b/text/0070-document-sensitive-data-collected.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +- Start Date: 2023-01-27 +- RFC Type: decision +- RFC PR: https://github.com/getsentry/rfcs/pull/70 +- RFC Status: draft + +# Summary + +One paragraph explanation of the feature or document purpose. + +# Motivation + +Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome? + +# Background + +The reason this decision or document is required. This section might not always exist. + +# Supporting Data + +[Metrics to help support your decision (if applicable).] + +# Options Considered + +If an RFC does not know yet what the options are, it can propose multiple options. The +preferred model is to propose one option and to provide alternatives. + +# Drawbacks + +Why should we not do this? What are the drawbacks of this RFC or a particular option if +multiple options are presented. + +# Unresolved questions + +- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through this RFC? +- What issues are out of scope for this RFC but are known?