diff --git a/rfcs/0008-graph-node-release-process.md b/rfcs/0008-graph-node-release-process.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0e1548d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rfcs/0008-graph-node-release-process.md
@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+# RFC-0008: Graph Node Release Process
+
+<dl>
+  <dt>Author</dt>
+  <dd>Eva Paulino Pace</dd>
+
+  <dt>RFC pull request</dt>
+  <dd><a href="https://github.com/graphprotocol/rfcs/pull/25">RFC</a></dd>
+
+  <dt>Date of submission</dt>
+  <dd>2022-05-04</dd>
+
+  <dt>Date of approval</dt>
+  <dd>TBD</dd>
+
+  <dt>Approved by</dt>
+  <dd>TBD0, TBD1</dd>
+</dl>
+
+## Contents
+
+<!-- toc -->
+
+## Summary
+
+Currently the Graph Node release process isn't well defined, and it has a few
+flaws that consume engineering time and make the commit history confusing and
+non-intuitive. This RFC aims to propose a solution to the problem.
+
+## Goals & Motivation
+
+### Current Challenges
+
+- The process for cutting the release isn’t well-defined;
+- We don’t track all the changes, and it’s time-consuming to discover/document
+  all these for the release;
+- There’s no upper bound on waiting for feedback from Indexers on a release;
+- It’s hard to know if patches on point releases are on master or not;
+- Git branching/handling is not consistent.
+
+### How it works nowadays
+
+Once we decide on a `master` commit for a new release candidate, we create a
+`release` PR from it pointing to the old `release` branch. Then after
+this branch is validated on the **integration cluster**, the PR gets closed.
+
+After the release is out, we have to re-do the `Cargo.toml` and `NEWS.md`
+in a new PR against `master`.
+
+## Urgency
+
+"Medium". We can keep the process the way it is, but it will not scale over
+time. We should implement a different process in the near to medium term.
+
+## Terminology
+
+Branches:
+
+- `master`: Same as today;
+- `release/0.27`: Long living branches created from `master`. They receive more
+  PRs if patches are needed for this `minor`;
+- `feature`: Same as today (eg: `person-name/feature-name`).
+
+## Detailed Design
+
+This RFC proposes that we keep using `master` and `feature` branches as they
+are today.
+
+The difference arises when we try to create a new release. We should define a
+point in `master`'s history that will be the new release candidate just like
+nowadays. However, the new branch will be a long-living one referring to a
+`minor` Graph Node version.
+
+We'll first test the chosen commit on the **integration cluster**, and after
+that's validated, the branch can be created, and before the tag is too, the
+`NEWS.md` and `Cargo.toml` files should be updated.
+
+There's [this script](https://github.com/graphprotocol/graph-node/blob/42c017e8f02f1859ffdadcae4e3a6fe773811881/scripts/update-cargo-version.sh) to help changing the latter, and these commits should
+be included in `master` too.
+
+After that, the git can be created and shared with indexers in the
+[#indexer-announcements](https://discord.com/channels/438038660412342282/791422773348007936) Discord channel.
+
+## Compatibility
+
+There are no breaking change and compatibility concerns.
+
+## Drawbacks and Risks
+
+This will "introduce complexity", but since currently, the process isn't clear,
+in my opinion introducing a clear process will actually simplify things.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+We could use `git flow`, but we don't need all of the complexity and branches
+it adds.
+
+## Open Questions
+
+What are unresolved questions?