Add: Templates from Rust RFC

Refer: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/0000-template.md

000-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+One paragraph explanation of the feature.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+- Why are we doing this?
+- What use cases does it support?
+- What is the expected outcome?
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the CSS-in-JS library and you were teaching it to another CSS-in-JS developer. That generally means:
+
+- Introducing new named concepts.
+- Explaining the feature largely in terms of examples.
+- Explaining how CSS-in-JS developers should *think* about the feature, and how it should impact the way they use the library. It should explain the impact as concretely as possible.
+- If applicable, add references to other libraries if you're inspired by them
+- If applicable, provide sample the code and the expected CSS compilation result.
+
+For implementation-oriented RFCs (e.g. for CSS-in-JS internals), this section should focus on how CSS-in-JS contributors should think about the change, and give examples of its concrete impact. For policy RFCs, this section should provide an example-driven introduction to the policy, and explain its impact in concrete terms.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+This is the technical portion of the RFC. Explain the design in sufficient detail that:
+
+- Its interaction with other features is clear.
+- It is reasonably clear how the feature would be implemented.
+- Corner cases are dissected by example.
+
+The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and explain more fully how the detailed proposal makes those examples work.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+Why should we *not* do this?
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+- Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs?
+- What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not choosing them?
+- What is the impact of not doing this?
+- If this is a language proposal, could this be done in a library or macro instead? Does the proposed change make Rust code easier or harder to read, understand, and maintain?
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions
+
+- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged?
+- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before stabilization?
+- What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC?
+
+# Future possibilities
+[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities
+
+Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would
+be and how it would affect the library and project as a whole in a holistic
+way. Try to use this section as a tool to more fully consider all possible
+interactions with the project and language in your proposal.
+Also consider how this all fits into the roadmap for the project
+and of the relevant sub-team.
+
+This is also a good place to "dump ideas", if they are out of scope for the
+RFC you are writing but otherwise related.
+
+If you have tried and cannot think of any future possibilities,
+you may simply state that you cannot think of anything.
+
+Note that having something written down in the future-possibilities section
+is not a reason to accept the current or a future RFC; such notes should be
+in the section on motivation or rationale in this or subsequent RFCs.
+The section merely provides additional information.