Propose that we move OTEPs into the specification repository.

text/0266-move-oteps-to-spec.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# Move OTEPS to the Specification repository
+
+Let's move OTEP documentation and PRs back into the github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification repository.
+
+## Motivation
+
+Moving OTEPs back into the specification solves two main issues:
+
+- Maintaining its tooling infrastructure (currently woefully out of date)
+- Bringing it into the existing triage and voting process currently within the
+  Specification.
+
+## Explanation
+
+Originally, OTEPs were kept as a separate repository to keep disjoint/disruptive designs as a separate repository.  There are a few differences between a normal PR and an OTEP:
+
+- OTEPs are expected to be directional and subject to change when actually entered into the specification.
+- OTEPs require more approvals than specification PRs
+- OTEPs have different PR worklfows (whether due to accidental omission or conscious decision), e.g. staleness checks, linting.
+
+As OpenTelemetry is stabilizing, the need for OTEPs to live outside the specification is growing less, and we face challenges like:
+
+- Keeping OTEP tooling up to date
+- Advertising the repositories existence
+  - New contributors to OpenTelemetry often can't find recorded decision that exist in OTEPs.
+  - Getting reviews from folks used to checking the Specification repository, but not the less-frequently-worked-on OTEP repository.
+
+To solve these, let's move OTEPs into a directory within the [specification repository](github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification).
+We would also update all tooling and expected reviews to match existing standards for OTEPs.  Given the maintainers of OTEPs are the same as
+maintainers of the specification, this should not change the bar for acceptance.
+
+## Internal details
+
+The following changes would occur:
+
+- The following files would be moved to the specification repo:
+  - `text/` directory -> `oteps/text/`
+  - `0000-template.md` -> `oteps/0000-template.md`
+- Update the specification `Makefile` to include linting, spell checking, link checking and TOC-ing the oteps directory.
+- A one-time cleanup of OTEP markdown upon import to the specification repository.
+- Close existing OTEP PRs and ask folks to reopen against the specification repository.
+- New labels within the specification repository to tag OTEPs, including automation to set these on PR open.
+- Updating contributing guidelines to include a section about OTEPs.
+- Add `oteps/README.md` file outlining that OTEPS are not normative and part of enhancement proposal process.
+- Add disclaimer to the header of every OTEP that the contents are not normative and part of the enhancement proposal process.
+
+## Trade-offs and mitigations
+
+Moving into the specification repository DOES mean that we would have a directory with a different quality bar and, somewhat, process than the rest of the repository.
+This can be mitigated through the use of clear, vibrant labels for OTEPS, and updating process guidelines for the specification repository to retain the important
+aspects of the current OTEP status.
+
+## Prior art and alternatives
+
+OTEPs were originally based on common enhancement proposal processes in other ecosystems, where enhancements live outside core repositories and follow a more rigorous criteria and evaluation. We are finding this
+problematic for OpenTelemetry for reasons discussed above. Additionally, unlike many other ecosystems where enhancement/design is kept separate from core code, OpenTelemetry *already* keeps its design separate
+form core code via the Specification vs. implementation repositories. Unlike these other OSS projects, our Specification generally requires rigorous discussion, design and prototyping prior to acceptance.  Even
+after acceptance into the specification, work is still required for improvements to roll out to the ecosystem. Effectively: The OpenTelemetry specification has no such thing as a "small" change: There are only medium changes that appear small, but would be enhancements in other proejcts or large changes that require an OTEP.
+
+## Open questions
+
+What are the important portions of the OTEP process to bring over? Have we missed anything in this description?
+
+## Future possibilities
+
+In the future, we could figure out how to make OTEPs more searchable, discoverable and highlighted within the opentelemetry.io website.
+
+Additionally, we can look at extending staleness deadlines for OTEP labeled PRs.