Use the MADR technique to capture decisions

status: {proposed | rejected | accepted | deprecated | … | superseded by ADR-0005}

date: {YYYY-MM-DD when the decision was last updated}

deciders: {list everyone involved in the decision}

consulted: {list everyone whose opinions are sought (typically subject-matter experts); and with whom there is a two-way communication}

informed: {list everyone who is kept up-to-date on progress; and with whom there is a one-way communication}

Use the GitHub ADR and MADR for architecture decisions

Context and Problem Statement

The Architecture Working Group must capture decisions.

We need a simple and agreeable way to capture and track these decisions.

Decision to make:

• what template
• where to keep them - github or wiki

Decision Drivers

• simple
• mature
• agreed upon
• works for opensource

Considered Options

• github adr / madr
• ad hoc
• {title of option 3}
• …

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: "{title of option 1}", because {justification. e.g., only option, which meets k.o. criterion decision driver | which resolves force {force} | … | comes out best (see below)}.

Consequences

• Good, because {positive consequence, e.g., improvement of one or more desired qualities, …}
• Bad, because {negative consequence, e.g., compromising one or more desired qualities, …}
• …

Validation

{describe how the implementation of/compliance with the ADR is validated. E.g., by a review or an ArchUnit test}

Pros and Cons of the Options

GitHub ADR / MADR

simple and mature way to capture architecture decisions

• Good, because it is widely used
• Good, because works in code and in confluence

• Bad, because {argument d}
• …

Ad-Hoc

We come up with our own way to capture

• Bad, because only used for openIDL