<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Writing on Bits, Trades &amp; Systems</title>
    <link>https://blog.turboawesome.win/tags/writing/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Writing on Bits, Trades &amp; Systems</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:07:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://blog.turboawesome.win/tags/writing/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Writing Technical RFCs That Actually Get Read</title>
      <link>https://blog.turboawesome.win/2021/02/writing-technical-rfcs-that-actually-get-read/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blog.turboawesome.win/2021/02/writing-technical-rfcs-that-actually-get-read/</guid>
      <description>Most technical RFCs fail at their primary purpose: creating alignment before building. The failures are almost always structural — missing context, buried decisions, or no clear ask. Here&amp;#39;s the format that worked.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
