Release 0.4.0: auto-set RFC owner = proposer

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -23,6 +23,51 @@ skip versions are the composition of each intervening adjacent
 release's steps in order — no A-to-B path is pre-computed beyond
 that.
 
+## 0.4.0 — 2026-05-27
+
+**Minor — no operator action required beyond rebuild + restart.** The
+proposer of a new RFC is now the implicit first owner of its super-
+draft entry, set automatically at propose time from the session user.
+The §13.1 claim flow remains available for *additional* owners. No
+schema changes, no env-var changes, no API-shape changes; only newly
+proposed RFCs receive the auto-owner — existing super-drafts whose
+`owners:` is empty are unaffected and can still be claimed via §13.1
+as before. This is a §19.3 rule-2 spec correction: `SPEC.md` §9.1,
+§9.2, and §13.1 are updated to reflect the new shape.
+
+### Changed
+
+- **`POST /api/rfcs/propose`** (`backend/app/api.py`) now sets
+  `Entry.owners = [user.gitea_login]` when constructing the new
+  super-draft entry, instead of `owners=[]`. The session's
+  `gitea_login` is the canonical source; the endpoint never accepted
+  an owner field from the request payload and still doesn't.
+- **`SPEC.md` §9.1** narrowed: the "no proposed-owner or working-
+  group fields" sentence becomes a proposer-owner-auto / working-
+  group-deferred split, with a §19.3 rule-2 note.
+- **`SPEC.md` §9.2** frontmatter shape: `owners: []` → `owners:
+  [<proposer.gitea_login>]`, with a §19.3 rule-2 note.
+- **`SPEC.md` §13.1** reframed: claim flow is now a graduation-time
+  broadening for additional owners, not a precondition for the
+  proposer's own RFC. The §13.1 / §13.2 / §13.3 graduation pipeline
+  itself is unchanged — the "at least one owner" precondition for
+  graduation still holds and is now satisfied by default.
+
+### Upgrade steps (from 0.3.0)
+
+1. The deployment **MUST** rebuild and restart per the routine
+   deploy steps. No `.env` changes, no schema/migration changes, no
+   API-shape changes.
+2. Operators **SHOULD** note that newly proposed RFCs after the
+   upgrade carry the proposer in `owners:` automatically. Existing
+   super-drafts with empty `owners:` are not migrated; they remain
+   claimable via the §13.1 flow exactly as before. No deployment-
+   side data action is required.
+3. Deployments **MAY** communicate the UX shift to active proposers
+   (the "Claim ownership" affordance no longer applies to your own
+   newly proposed RFC), but the affordance simply hides on RFCs the
+   viewer already owns, so no operator-side action is required.
+
 ## 0.3.0 — 2026-05-27
 
 **Minor — operator action required if a deployment wants to enable the

SPEC.md

@@ -1120,12 +1120,20 @@ The modal collects four fields:
   type their own.
 
 No proposer name or email — the logged-in identity is canonical and
-need not be retyped. No proposed-owner or working-group fields —
-ownership flows through the post-merge claim flow (§13.1), and
+need not be retyped. No proposer-owner field either: the proposer is
+implicitly the first owner of their own RFC, set automatically at
+submit-time from the session user (see §9.2); the post-merge claim
+flow (§13.1) remains for *other* contributors to add themselves as
+owners on an RFC they didn't propose. No working-group field —
 arbiters are admin work, not the proposer's call. AI's drafting role
 is intentionally narrow: tag suggestions only. The proposer is
 making a specific claim about a specific word, and having AI propose
-the claim for them would undercut the gesture.
+the claim for them would undercut the gesture. (§19.3 rule-2
+correction: 0.4.0 narrowed this paragraph; the prior version asserted
+"no proposed-owner field" without qualification, but running code
+revealed that forcing a separate claim-flow gesture for the
+proposer's own RFC was UX friction with no benefit — the proposer
+already self-identified by proposing.)
 
 Primary action: **"Open proposal PR"** — naming the actual Git
 artifact produced, consistent with §10.1's *Open PR* and §13's
@@ -1141,7 +1149,13 @@ is populated from the modal and session:
 - `state: super-draft`, `id: null`, `repo: null`,
   `graduated_at: null`, `graduated_by: null` — fixed at creation.
 - `proposed_by: <session email>`, `proposed_at: <today>` — auto.
-- `owners: []` — empty; the claim flow (§13.1) fills this.
+- `owners: [<proposer.gitea_login>]` — the proposer is the first
+  owner at propose time, set automatically from the session user.
+  The §13.1 claim flow remains available for *additional* owners on
+  the same entry. (§19.3 rule-2 correction: 0.4.0 changed this from
+  `owners: []`; the prior shape required a separate claim-flow
+  gesture for the proposer's own RFC, which running code surfaced
+  as needless UX friction.)
 - `arbiters: []` — empty; arbiters are admin work, not the
   proposer's call.
 
@@ -1718,11 +1732,20 @@ PR do not block graduation; they remain on the meta repo subject to
 
 ### 13.1 Claim ownership (prerequisite)
 
-If a super-draft has no owner, any signed-in contributor can click
-"Claim ownership," which opens a PR against the meta repo adding their
-username to the `owners:` field of the entry. Owners and admins can
-merge. (A self-merge window for un-acted claims is not enabled in v1;
-configurable later if needed.) Multiple claims simply append.
+The proposer is already the first owner of any super-draft they
+proposed (per §9.2; auto-set at propose time). The claim flow exists
+for *additional* contributors to become owners on an existing super-
+draft — typically a draft whose proposer has stepped away, or a draft
+graduating with a working group. Any signed-in contributor can click
+"Claim ownership," which opens a PR against the meta repo adding
+their username to the `owners:` field of the entry. Owners and admins
+can merge. (A self-merge window for un-acted claims is not enabled in
+v1; configurable later if needed.) Multiple claims simply append.
+(§19.3 rule-2 correction: 0.4.0 narrowed this section's framing; the
+prior version implied owners always started empty and the claim flow
+was a hard prerequisite to graduation, but with the proposer now
+auto-set as first owner, the claim flow is a graduation-time
+broadening rather than a precondition for the proposer's own RFC.)
 
 ### 13.2 The Graduate dialog
 

VERSION

@@ -1 +1 @@
-0.3.0
+0.4.0

backend/app/api.py

@@ -298,7 +298,11 @@ def make_router(
             proposed_at=entry_mod.today(),
             graduated_at=None,
             graduated_by=None,
-            owners=[],
+            # §9.2: the proposer is the implicit first owner at propose time.
+            # The §13.1 claim flow exists for *other* contributors to become
+            # owners on an RFC they didn't propose; the proposer never needs
+            # to claim their own RFC.
+            owners=[user.gitea_login],
             arbiters=[],
             tags=[t.strip() for t in payload.tags if t.strip()],
             body=payload.pitch.strip() + "\n",

backend/tests/test_propose_vertical.py

@@ -496,6 +496,11 @@ def test_propose_to_super_draft_vertical(app_with_fake_gitea):
         proposal = r.json()
         assert proposal["entry"]["title"] == "Open Human Model"
         assert proposal["entry"]["state"] == "super-draft"
+        # §9.2: the proposer is the implicit first owner at propose time.
+        # The owners field is a single-element list containing exactly the
+        # session user's gitea_login — no request-supplied owner field
+        # exists or is honored.
+        assert proposal["entry"]["owners"] == ["alice"]
         assert proposal["affordances"]["merge"] is True
 
         # Owner merges. The catalog picks up the new super-draft.
@@ -516,6 +521,10 @@ def test_propose_to_super_draft_vertical(app_with_fake_gitea):
         view = r.json()
         assert view["state"] == "super-draft"
         assert "shared definition" in view["body"]
+        # §9.2: the auto-set proposer-owner survives the meta-repo round-trip
+        # — it's in the file's frontmatter on main after merge, not just
+        # in the pending-PR view above.
+        assert view["owners"] == ["alice"]
 
         # The pending-ideas list no longer carries the merged proposal.
         r = client.get("/api/proposals")
@@ -568,6 +577,37 @@ def test_anonymous_cannot_propose(app_with_fake_gitea):
         assert r.status_code == 401
 
 
+def test_proposer_is_auto_owner_request_payload_ignored(app_with_fake_gitea):
+    """§9.2: the owners field on the new entry is always exactly
+    `[session.gitea_login]`. The propose endpoint never accepts an owner
+    from the client; a request payload that smuggles one in is ignored
+    by the Pydantic body model and the auto-set value lands instead.
+    """
+    from fastapi.testclient import TestClient
+    app, _fake = app_with_fake_gitea
+    with TestClient(app) as client:
+        provision_user_row(user_id=11, login="alice", role="contributor")
+        sign_in_as(client, user_id=11, gitea_login="alice", display_name="Alice", role="contributor")
+        # Extra unknown fields like `owners` are dropped by the
+        # ProposeBody model; the session user is the only source of truth.
+        r = client.post("/api/rfcs/propose", json={
+            "title": "Spoof attempt",
+            "slug": "spoof-attempt",
+            "pitch": "p",
+            "tags": [],
+            "owners": ["mallory", "eve"],
+            "proposed_by": "mallory@test",
+        })
+        assert r.status_code == 200, r.text
+        pr_number = r.json()["pr_number"]
+        r = client.get(f"/api/proposals/{pr_number}")
+        assert r.status_code == 200, r.text
+        entry = r.json()["entry"]
+        assert entry["owners"] == ["alice"]
+        # proposed_by also comes from the session, never the body.
+        assert entry["proposed_by"] in ("alice@test", "alice")
+
+
 def test_withdraw_by_proposer_works(app_with_fake_gitea):
     from fastapi.testclient import TestClient
     app, _fake = app_with_fake_gitea

frontend/package.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "rfc-app-frontend",
   "private": true,
-  "version": "0.3.0",
+  "version": "0.4.0",
   "type": "module",
   "scripts": {
     "dev": "vite",

frontend/src/App.jsx

@@ -159,6 +159,7 @@ export default function App() {
       </div>
       {proposeOpen && viewer && (
         <ProposeModal
+          viewer={viewer}
           onClose={() => setProposeOpen(false)}
           onSubmitted={({ pr_number }) => {
             setProposeOpen(false)

frontend/src/components/ProposeModal.jsx

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ function slugify(title) {
     .replace(/^-+|-+$/g, '')
 }
 
-export default function ProposeModal({ onClose, onSubmitted }) {
+export default function ProposeModal({ viewer, onClose, onSubmitted }) {
   const [title, setTitle] = useState('')
   const [slug, setSlug] = useState('')
   const [slugEdited, setSlugEdited] = useState(false)
@@ -131,6 +131,12 @@ export default function ProposeModal({ onClose, onSubmitted }) {
               </div>
             )}
 
+            {viewer && (
+              <p className="field-help" style={{ marginTop: 14, marginBottom: 0 }}>
+                Owner: <strong>{viewer.display_name || viewer.gitea_login}</strong> — you'll be the first owner of this super-draft. Additional owners can claim later (§13.1).
+              </p>
+            )}
+
             {error && <p className="field-error">{error}</p>}
           </div>
           <div className="modal-actions">