<!--
The template is not strict. You can use any ADR structure that feels best for a particular case.
See these ADR examples for inspiration:
- [Cassandra SEP - Ganeral Purpose Transactions](https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-15%3A+General+Purpose+Transactions)
- [Rust RFC - Lifetime Ellision](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0141-lifetime-elision.md)
- [TiKV - Use Joint Consensus](https://github.com/tikv/rfcs/blob/master/text/0054-joint-consensus.md)
-->
status: "rejected | accepted | deprecated | … | superseded by ADR-0123 (add link)" <!-- Proposed status left out as we consider an MR as proposition -->
decision-makers: list everyone involved in the decision

<!--
consulted: list everyone whose opinions are sought (typically subject-matter experts); and with whom there is a two-way communication
informed: list everyone who is kept up-to-date on progress; and with whom there is a one-way communication
-->

--------------------------------

# short title, representative of solved problem and found solution

## Context and Problem Statement

<!-- Describe the context and problem statement, e.g., in free form using two to three sentences or in the form of an illustrative story.
You may want to articulate the problem in form of a question and add links to gitlab issues. -->

## Considered Options

<!--
* title of option 1
* title of option 2
* title of option 3
* …
-->

## Decision Outcome

<!-- Chosen option: "title of option 1", because justification. e.g., only option, which meets k.o. criterion decision driver 
| which resolves … | … | comes out best (see below). -->

### Consequences

<!--
* Good, because positive consequence, e.g., improvement of one or more desired qualities, …
* Bad, because negative consequence, e.g., compromising one or more desired qualities, …
* …
-->

### Deliverables

<!--
Describe what the deliverables are and how the implementation of/compliance with the ADR can/will be confirmed.
-->
