Apply suggestions from community interviews

Adds a section around guidance for commenting and clarifies expectations for the WG during the review process. These additions were driven from interviews with community contributors and their prior experience with RFC processes.

Author: michaeltlombardi

rfc/RFC0000-rfc-process.md

@@ -81,6 +81,17 @@ When a Sponsor commits to the RFC, a WG member will:
 
 The WG will only accept RFCs with a Sponsor.
 
+## Commenting on an RFC
+
+When providing feedback or otherwise commenting on an RFC proposal, focus your feedback and
+discussion on the proposed experience and functionality. The WG may close conversations that are
+distracting from the core purpose of the RFC, such as bikeshedding around names for proposed APIs.
+
+As always, you must adhere to the [Code of Conduct][coc] when participating in discussions in the
+DSC repository.
+
+[coc]: ../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
+
 ## RFC Status
 
 An RFC may be in any of the following states:
@@ -109,6 +120,12 @@ WG member will then apply the `RFC - Reviewing` label to the PR.
 
 After the author marks their PR as ready for review, the RFC moves into the formal review state.
 
+While the RFC is in review, the WG members are responsible for providing comments and feedback on
+the PR. The WG meets at least once a month, during which they will review open RFCs. The WG will
+always indicate to the Author a date by which the Author can expect feedback. The WG is responsible
+for communicating with the Author during the review process to negotiate timelines for addressing
+feedback and for updating the Author on the review status of their proposal.
+
 The RFC remains in this state until one of the following conditions is met:
 
 - The WG decides to reject the RFC, changing the state to [Rejected](#rejected).