Template (#4)

This is loosely based off of the Rust project's RFCs template, which you
can find here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/0000-template.md

Signed-off-by: Connor Tsui <connor.tsui20@gmail.com>

Author: connortsui20

proposals/0000-template.md

@@ -1,38 +1,66 @@
-# RFC 0000 - Template Mode
-
-## Goals
-
-1. Create RFCs
-1. ??
-1. Profit
-
-## Diagrams
-
-Here is an ASCII diagram:
-
-```
-     ╔ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═                     
-                          ║                    
-     ║   BitPackedArray                        
-                          ║                    
-     ╚│═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ╤ ═ ═                     
-      │              │                         
-      │              │                         
-      │              │                         
-      │              │                         
-      │              │                         
-      │              │                         
-      │              │  patch                  
-      │              │  indices    ╔ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ 
-┌─────▼─────┐        ├─────────────▶ ArrayRef ║
-│░░░░░░░░░░░│        │             ╚ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ 
-│░░Buffer░░░│        │                         
-│░░░░░░░░░░░│        │  patch                  
-└───────────┘        │  values     ╔ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ 
-   encoded           └─────────────▶ ArrayRef ║
-                                   ╚ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ 
-```
-
-We can have links, like https://github.com/vortex-data
-
-BUT, we can also have [**LINKS**](https://vortex.dev) or [__links__](https://docs.vortex.dev)
+- Start Date: (today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
+- RFC PR: [vortex-data/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/vortex-data/rfcs/pull/0000)
+- Tracking Issue: [vortex-data/vortex#0000](https://github.com/vortex-data/vortex/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+One paragraph explanation of the proposed change.
+
+## Motivation
+
+What problem does this solve? Include concrete use cases where possible.
+
+- What specific use cases does this enable or improve?
+- What workflows or operations are painful, slow, or impossible today?
+
+## Design
+
+Describe the proposed design in enough detail that someone familiar with Vortex could implement it. This should cover:
+
+- New or modified APIs, traits, or vtable entries.
+- How this interacts with existing components (encodings, layouts, scan, file format, etc.).
+- Key implementation details and corner cases.
+- Why is this the best approach in the space of possible designs?
+- Which crates are affected and how the dependency graph changes, if at all.
+
+Use code examples and diagrams where they might help.
+
+## Compatibility
+
+- Does this change the file format or wire format? Is it backward/forward compatible?
+- Does this break any public APIs? If so, what is the migration path?
+- Are there performance implications?
+
+If there are no compatibility concerns, briefly state why.
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+- Why should we _not_ do this?
+- What is the maintenance cost of this change?
+- Does this add complexity that could be avoided?
+
+## Alternatives
+
+- What other designs were considered and why were they rejected?
+- What is the cost of **not** doing this?
+- Is there a simpler approach that gets us most of the way there?
+
+## Prior Art
+
+How have other systems solved this or similar problems? Consider:
+
+- Other columnar formats (Parquet, Arrow, etc.).
+- Database internals (DuckDB, DataFusion, Velox, etc.).
+- Relevant academic papers or blog posts.
+
+This section helps frame the design in a broader context. If there is no relevant prior art, that is fine.
+
+## Unresolved Questions
+
+- What parts of the design need to be resolved during the RFC process?
+- What is explicitly out of scope for this RFC?
+- Are there open questions that can be deferred to implementation?
+
+## Future Possibilities
+
+What natural extensions or follow-on work does this enable? This is a good place to note related ideas that are out of scope for this RFC but worth capturing.