Re: [tao-discuss] [Gendispatch] Requests for IETF 114

On Wed, Jun 8 2022 at 2:12 AM, Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net>
wrote:

> On 07-06-2022 13:04, Jay Daley wrote:
>
> The problems I have with it though are not minor. The name itself, ’Tao’,
> is a reference too far. Sure some of use have read "The Tao of Pooh" and
> get the allusion but for most people, it goes straight over their heads
>
> I agree with this point. The name 'Tao' is neither funny nor helping
> people understand what the document is about.
>

I happen to like the Tao name, but it certainly isn't a hill I'm willing to
even stub my toe on...

More importantly though, I sincerely doubt that it is of any practical use
> to its intended audience - it’s far too sprawling, detailed and full of
> rules to be of use to a newcomer. To be quite candid, every time someone
> recommends to a newcomer that they read the Tao, I cringe. What it does do
> is provide a useful reference for long-term participants (where else are
> the dot colours documented) but that’s not the intended audience. It’s
> become more a series of authoritative statements that can be
> referenced/found individually than a flowing document.
>
> I think there is place for a 'Tao'-like document - if only for referencing
> by newcomers.
>
> I don't see why an RFC'ed Tao, a good website, and video content could not
> all live side-by-side. We don't need to have one learning path for all
> newcomers, people consume knowledge in different ways.
>

Yup, that's what I was proposing, but I did it much much less clearly and
with more rant.

Therefore I agree to obsolete RFC6722.
>

Yup -- I think that RFC6722 was a fine idea, and that it was worth trying,
but when it was written we didn't really have all of the other publication
options. Yes, we had a website, but we didn't have a Greg, and it wasn't as
approachable for newcomers. I certainly don't think that 6722 was a bad
document, just that the world changed around it and that it has outlived
its usefulness.

This will be a fun consensus call -- I feel strongly that the Tao (or
something like it) should remain, and be an RFC. What I haven't yet figured
out is if the opposition[0] is of the form "this seems silly, but if y'all
want to waste your time with this, go ahead" or "you will rue the day...".
I'm hoping it is the former, because having multiple sources for this sort
of information doesn't seem like it is harmful, but I may be wrong...

W

[0]: Me? Be melodramatic about something like this? Never!!!!

Best,
>
> Niels
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever, PhD
> Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of
> Amsterdam Affiliated Faculty - Digital Democracy Institute - Simon Fraser
> University Non-Resident Fellow 2022-2023 - Center for Democracy &
> Technology Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação
> Getúlio Vargas Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights -
> European University Viadrina
>
> Vice chair - Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
>
> W: https://nielstenoever.net
> E: mail@nielstenoever.net
> T: @nielstenoever
> P/S/WA: +31629051853
> PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>
> Read my latest article on Internet infrastructure governance in
> Globalizations here:
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2021.1953221
>
> _______________________________________________
> tao-discuss mailing list
> tao-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss
>