diff --git a/0000-template.md b/0000-template.md
deleted file mode 100644
index a45c6110e..000000000
--- a/0000-template.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
-- Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, my_awesome_feature)
-- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
-- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
-- Rust Issue: (leave this empty)
-
-# Summary
-[summary]: #summary
-
-One para explanation of the feature.
-
-# Motivation
-[motivation]: #motivation
-
-Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome?
-
-# Detailed design
-[design]: #detailed-design
-
-This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody familiar
-with the language to understand, and for somebody familiar with the compiler to implement.
-This should get into specifics and corner-cases, and include examples of how the feature is used.
-
-# Drawbacks
-[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
-
-Why should we *not* do this?
-
-# Alternatives
-[alternatives]: #alternatives
-
-What other designs have been considered? What is the impact of not doing this?
-
-# Unresolved questions
-[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
-
-What parts of the design are still TBD?
diff --git a/text/0000-stable-overflow-checks.md b/text/0000-stable-overflow-checks.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..2c0a27a17
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/0000-stable-overflow-checks.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+- Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, my_awesome_feature)
+- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
+- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
+- Rust Issue: (leave this empty)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Stabilize the `-C overflow-checks` command line argument.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+This is an easy way to turn on overflow checks in release builds
+without otherwise turning on debug assertions, via the `-C
+debug-assertions` flag. In stable Rust today you can't get one without
+the other.
+
+Users can use the `-C overflow-checks` flag from their Cargo
+config to turn on overflow checks for an entire application.
+
+This flag, which accepts values of 'yes'/'no', 'on'/'off', is being
+renamed from `force-overflow-checks` because the `force` doesn't add
+anything that the 'yes'/'no'
+
+# Detailed design
+[design]: #detailed-design
+
+This is a stabilization RFC. The only steps will be to move
+`force-overflow-checks` from `-Z` to `-C`, renaming it to
+`overflow-checks`, and making it stable.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+It's another rather ad-hoc flag for modifying code generation.
+
+Like other such flags, this applies to the entire code unit,
+regardless of monomorphizations. This means that code generation for a
+single function can be diferent based on which code unit its
+instantiated in.
+
+# Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+The flag could instead be tied to crates such that any time code from
+that crate is inlined/monomorphized it turns on overflow checks.
+
+We might also want a design that provides per-function control over
+overflow checks.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+None.
\ No newline at end of file