# RFD D54: Multi-Participant Conversations - **Status**: Draft - **Category**: Design - **Authors**: Jean Mertz - **Date**: 2026-06-07 - **Requires**: [RFD 097], [RFD 070], [RFD D51], [RFD 098], [RFD D53] ## Summary This RFD generalizes JP conversations from one human and one assistant to many participants sharing one event stream: several named assistant participants and the human deliberating in one room. The detailed design is deferred until its prerequisites are accepted; this document records the goal, the motivation, and the dependency chain. ## Motivation Several JP workflows need more than one assistant voice in one shared context. A pull-request panel is the motivating example: a reviewer assistant, a triager assistant, and the human deliberating in one room, rather than maintaining separate conversations and relaying context between them by hand. An earlier end-to-end exploration of this design surfaced two conclusions. First, multi-participant conversations rest on several capabilities that are valuable on their own and should land first: assistant-scoped tool configuration, explicit request-to-response event linking, inline attachment URI parsing (which frees the `@` prefix this design needs for addressing), stable event identifiers (RFD 097), and negative config deltas (RFD 070). Each is independently useful to single-assistant JP and is being written as its own RFD. Second, once those exist — negative deltas in particular — a blank-sheet design is likely to be materially simpler than one layered onto today's config-delta model, which is why this RFD does not carry forward the earlier draft's design. This RFD therefore defers its own design until its prerequisites are accepted. It exists now to record the goal and to hold the dependency edges in its metadata header, so the sequencing is explicit and the design begins from the right foundation. ## Design The core of the RFD. Describe the proposed solution in enough detail that someone familiar with the codebase could implement it. Use diagrams, code snippets, and examples where they help. Start with what the user or caller sees — the external behavior, API, or experience — before describing internals. Structure this section however makes sense for the topic. Common subsections include: Overview, Design Goals, Architecture, Data Flow, API Changes, Configuration Changes. Every section can be brief. A one-sentence Alternatives section is better than no Alternatives section. ## Drawbacks What are the known costs of this approach? What does the project give up by adopting it? Argue honestly against your own proposal. ## Alternatives What other approaches were considered? Why were they rejected? This section is important — it shows the reader that the solution space was explored and gives future readers context for the decision. ## Non-Goals What this RFD explicitly does not aim to achieve, even though a reader might expect it to. This keeps the discussion focused and signals awareness of the broader picture. ## Risks and Open Questions What could go wrong? What don't we know yet? What needs to be validated during implementation? It's better to surface uncertainty explicitly than to pretend it doesn't exist. ## Implementation Plan How will this be implemented? Break the work into phases or steps. This section bridges the gap between design and execution. For each phase, briefly describe: - What it includes - What it depends on (other phases, or other RFDs by number) - Whether it can be reviewed and merged independently If a phase has measurable cost implications (token budget, latency, binary size, API calls), include a brief quantitative estimate. ## References Links to related RFDs, issues, documentation, or external resources. [RFD 070]: ../070-negative-config-deltas.md [RFD 097]: ../097-stable-event-identifiers.md [RFD 098]: ../098-request-response-event-linking.md [RFD D51]: D51-assistant-scoped-tool-configuration.md [RFD D53]: D53-inline-attachment-uri-parsing.md