diff --git a/rfcs/0025-nix-core-team.md b/rfcs/0025-nix-core-team.md
index 4c803cb..c7cd732 100644
--- a/rfcs/0025-nix-core-team.md
+++ b/rfcs/0025-nix-core-team.md
@@ -1,11 +1,17 @@
 ---
 feature: nix-core-team
 start-date: 2018-01-31
+end-date: 2019-04-25
 author: Graham Christensen
 co-authors: Daniel Peebles, Eelco Dolstra, Peter Simons, Shea Levy, Vladimír Čunát
-related-issues:
+related-issues: #44 (disbands the team)
 ---
 
+# Superseded!
+
+This RFC is superseded by [RFC 44](./0044-disband-nix-core.md). The original text
+is preserved below.
+
 # Summary
 [summary]: #summary
 
diff --git a/rfcs/0044-disband-nix-core.md b/rfcs/0044-disband-nix-core.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..be2700b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rfcs/0044-disband-nix-core.md
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+---
+feature: disband-nix-core
+start-date: 2019-04-25
+author: Shea Levy
+co-authors:
+related-issues: NixOS/rfcs#25
+---
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Formally disband the Nix Core Team in favor of the RFC steering
+committee.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+The Nix Core Team was a first attempt at more formal process for the
+evolution of the Nix ecosystem and community. It was originally slated
+as a year-long experiment.
+
+It is now a little over a year since officially merging. In that time,
+the core team has not made signifcant progress on its initial goals.
+We now have the RFC steering/shepherding process which serves similar
+goals (but for the whole ecosystem, not just Nix proper) and is
+operating well. The remaining functions of the core team *not* covered
+by the RFC process (e.g. PR triage) can be resurrected as more
+narrowly defined responsibilities defined through RFCs.
+
+# Detailed design
+[design]: #detailed-design
+
+Remove the github group, close down the communication channels,
+announce on all relevant forums.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+* The RFC process is not based around Nix expertise per se, and so may
+  not cover the right skillsets.
+* There is not perfect overlap between the RFC process coverage and
+  what the core team was intended to cover.
+
+# Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+* Keep the core team around in its current form and responsibilities.
+  Would require a fresh attempt to follow through on the relevant
+  committments to be practical.
+* Reform the core team based on what we've learned, including possibly
+  narrowing the scope.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+N/A
+
+# Future work
+[future]: #future-work
+
+Potentially explicitly enshrining some of the former core team
+responsibilities in some future RFCs.