Earlier clarification of pFCP abbreviation (#791)

Author: sphynx

src/implementing_new_features.md

@@ -20,23 +20,24 @@ process (e.g. a big refactoring of the code, or a
 amounts to a small feature) but is still too controversial or
 big to get by with a single r+, you can start a pFCP (or, if you
 don't have r+ rights, ask someone who has them to start one - and
-unless they have a concern themselves, they should).
+unless they have a concern themselves, they should). pFCP stands for
+"proposed final comment period".
 
 Again, the pFCP process is only needed if you need consensus - if you
 don't think anyone would have a problem with your change, it's ok to
 get by with only an r+. For example, it is OK to add or modify
-unstable command-line flags or attributes without an pFCP for
+unstable command-line flags or attributes without a pFCP for
 compiler development or standard library use, as long as you don't
 expect them to be in wide use in the nightly ecosystem.
 
 You don't need to have the implementation fully ready for r+ to ask
 for a pFCP, but it is generally a good idea to have at least a proof
 of concept so that people can see what you are talking about.
 
-That starts a "proposed final comment period" (pFCP), which requires
-all members of the team to sign off the FCP. After they all do so,
-there's a 10 day long "final comment period" where everybody can comment,
-and if no new concerns are raised, the PR/issue gets FCP approval.
+When a pFCP is started, it requires all members of the team to sign off
+the FCP. After they all do so, there's a 10 day long "final comment
+period" where everybody can comment, and if no new concerns are raised,
+the PR/issue gets FCP approval.
 
 ## The logistics of writing features