Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 04 June 2020 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811B83A0FD6; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 15:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m4LBu_JMcbs2; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 15:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3860E3A0FD3; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 15:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m2so1821976pjv.2; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WHEY9CVepEV7bC1Cezes0tRDAmk4n3thN/x5UHIo6Xg=; b=HVvH/Pfi7XHUGGDSXamd6Bd5cjj18r+LE3eFMQxy76zf5t85xj/o2NwEsfLX8V+nMO nyysh2X9TlB1F4paDZdVJJxZ8MihDrS6fk4U9YgDEhRltXv3D2ahgknaX78TqjLgSvfc 3BMVvl9Oo46dN61dQOZjLddJz3qobSBlp1K1IrjHESEB8y/41xNT7BtIpZpgqLU6hnkd Lni5vNArTyxnywMADsO6XYvItMtET4tR8AouEa7N2ikn9ffx8BIAZ7JIkYScOZJ5yluN poDXmP+fZKUQftJSWY/XVafGQ0C4OJ7mkZ8LDycgybXD7BoCNFDl19jHUKDCaLaKQkWm wO0g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WHEY9CVepEV7bC1Cezes0tRDAmk4n3thN/x5UHIo6Xg=; b=oLgTspg8zBjpIpIarZV1eaS4CeHhGt6B5Q5hTke1V8CddIm8/0CT8jQMYl0Aadp6qU KiBLJZON1lLCNQEhTW8ROc55FcsrObjFJAK7UMWNnUuZqOYnDDx8DMqNWfp8DFBj8gJn yv0wL7HbfDAp2R7c0TVtpcmxpQy3C/07r24y0/elpRMuOu8fPM0xyYpTM4cg03q2MDhk opJeC4fn/DipHNciDyc9etuoIBJw4GLme6WiEYRyXXlxQwgwn8PfuVNf4oKPUD3RQs+z kItt3YiavUQiKqOPfOpNA+5rjWcus7+A1nEy4V6cyxBiCv2KPXvCB6K/xvkmnAWI/F5q Zeww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531FwW3fUaFS4/bbF/JZLGz+tXeApuNtYMHaSw45KjffOFZ4ldNm 1m90x3saCCRgn/z6TDJhyZObBxX05Cw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwhvkD9bjc32PlVhaMFOuyXJ/V1bcEx6poMoksqm0vSHxMFAkOQzMKiHCY1P32/0Z7h+mHrZg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:70c6:: with SMTP id a6mr3196869pjm.16.1591308873433; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id j186sm5386008pfb.220.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020
To: Jay Daley <>, Stephen Farrell <>
Cc: ietf <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 10:14:28 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 22:14:36 -0000

On 05-Jun-20 09:51, Jay Daley wrote:
>> On 4/06/2020, at 10:13 PM, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
>> If you read my mail, the comment was that all this
>> "journey" stuff was either waffly or over-reach and
>> that ditching the fashionista term and using clear
>> English would be needed to determine which. I think
>> that's a clear comment.
> Your responses so far suggest that you have no regard for the field of UX for which user journey mapping is a foundational technique, and as I’m not willing to abandon the use of those techniques to help us in our work I’m not sure how far we can go with this.  However I’ve had one last attempt by creating a new issue 
> "More clarity around participant journey" 
> and addressing that with this change

Better, but I still think that the phrase "the participant journey" suggests that there is only one typical path through the IETF labyrinth, and that isn't so. There are many alternative paths and destinations, not to mention many different motivations for participating. I'm not sure the "journey" concept captures that.