Re: [tao-discuss] Evolution of the Tao

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Two comments towards the end:

On 28-Jun-22 23:17, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 27 Jun 2022, at 23:30, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jay,
>>
>> On 27-Jun-22 23:45, Jay Daley wrote:
>>> Hi Brian
>>>> On 25 Jun 2022, at 05:42, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jay,
>>>>
>>>> First of all, can we separate this discussion from the decision about posting the recently updated Tao? All that work shouldn't (IMHO) be thrown away, since in the best case it will take months to produce a restructured replacement.
>>> I prefer not to.  As I have explained I think there are issues with the rewritten Tao that I think are significant and I would prefer it is abandoned and new documentation written using the existing content.  Posting a new version, particularly as an RFC
>>
>> I am *not* advocating an RFC. I'm just saying: immediately post the updated text as it stands today at https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/, and then move on.
> 
> I agree.
> 
>>
>>> would only revive it and give it new impetus.  It would also seem quite odd to people if we did that and before the ink was dry we had started to abandon reference to it preferring new style documentation.
>>
>> You could post it with a preamble saying that work is in progress to break it up into smaller modules. I imagine that process will take quite some months to complete.
> 
> Also agree.
> 
>>
>>> Of course, this a community decision so I won’t push this any further, but I hope I have been clear.
>>>> Having said that, I think what you propose is reasonable. The Tao is too big to eat at a single meal. Smaller chunks with a well defined scope would be better. I'd add another chunk, "Folklore of the IETF", which might be more in the original Tao style, for things like explaining the rough consensus model, "Bar BOFs", and other things that are not (and should not be) formalized.
>>> The rough consensus model is not folklore, it’s a core part of the working of the IETF as detailed in BCP 9 and should be explained as such.
>>
>> Yes, but *how it really works* is folklore (RFC7282 etc.).
> 
> Can something really be folklore if it’s published in an RFC?  Anyway, that’s an esoteric question for another time and putting that aside, yes I agree.
> 
>>
>>> I agree that we should have something like the "folklore of the IETF" as we have a series of aphorisms that are very useful for long term participants in defining their internal model of the IETF, even more so than the documented principles of the IETF in RFC.  However, I don’t agree that it should be in the original Tao style (i.e. aimed at newcomers) because, like all good aphorisms, they work best to consolidate knowledge rather than to introduce new knowledge.
>>
>> Sure; I meant like the Tao in the sense of being informative or even tentative.
> 
> I would hope all our documentation is informative!  I’m not sure what you mean by tentative in this context?

Perhaps it was a bad choice of word, but (again taking rough consensus as the example), it's hard to give a *definitive* description of how a chair judges "rough". Or as we've seen in another discussion, what is the boundary between robust comment and rudeness.

> 
>>
>>>>> Another issue of course is how all this would interact with various existing pages, such as those explicitly directed at newcomers, and material provided by EMO.
>>> Indeed.  More on this below.
>>>> Finally I really think we need a forum where interested participants can preview a sandbox version of all material. Rich will say that we're amateurs and should leave it to UX/IX experts. But that's wrong; the subject-matter experts on IETF participation are IETF participants, and they (er, we) need to be part of the process here.
>>> There are lots of things to separate out here - what the content says, the style in which it says it, where it says it, how it is made available to people, what the overall strategy is for this, and so on.  When it is separated out like that, it’s possible to see different but complimentary roles for IETF participants, emodir, UI/UX experts and staff.  I have recently suggested to the IETF Chair that he consider something like a content team - a group of participants and staff who do the heavy lifting in writing content and setting the style - supporting emodir in its coordination role, and who continue with the trend for keeping content on GitHub so that anyone at all can raise an issue or propose a change.
>>
>> Right, except that GitHub cannot be the only forum for public comment. Also see my preceding reply to Rich.
> 
> Other than a list, do you have any other mechanism in mind?  e.g. Should we have some form of "comment on this page" feature on the website?

Wikipedia goes the whole hog, with a "Talk" page for each informational page, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IETF_Administrative_Oversight_Committee

I'm not sure we need to go that far, but such a button could make sense.

    Brian

> 
> Jay
> 
>>
>>   Brian
>>
>>> Jay
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>> On 24-Jun-22 00:23, Jay Daley wrote:
>>>>> As I’ve explained in previous messages, I think it’s time for the Tao to evolve into a new set of documents that are written differently but cover much of the same subject matter. The new documents I see possibly coming from the Tao are
>>>>> - Introduction to the IETF
>>>>> - How the IETF Works
>>>>> - IETF Meetings
>>>>> - Structure and Governance of the IETF
>>>>> To help explain my thoughts I’ve put together the first of these "Introduction to the IETF" using the Tao as the source material as much as possible
>>>>> https://notes.ietf.org/Hp8iHjWxRc6eFqg--woGww?view <https://notes.ietf.org/Hp8iHjWxRc6eFqg--woGww?view>
>>>>> The key differences between the way this is written and the way the Tao is written are:
>>>>> 1. I’ve tried to give full coverage to what matters without going into details on everything even if that means leaving some things unexplained or only vaguely touched on. More detail can come in whichever of the three other documents is relevant.
>>>>> 2. While this is targeted at newcomers and anyone else who wants to find out about the IETF I've barely mentioned newcomers at all. For me the regular mention of newcomers in the Tao actually puts people off by labelling them and boxing them into a pre-defined role. Better just to tell people the facts and let them decide how they fit in.
>>>>> 3. Wherever possible I’ve tried to say "this is what X is" rather than the regular Tao approach of "you might think X is … but no it’s actually … !!".
>>>>> 4. I’ve removed almost all of the side remarks, insights into culture, memes, etc while still trying to capture the intent where needed. It’s not that they’re without value, it’s just that they have a time and a place where they are most effective and I think that is when someone is already somewhat familiar with the IETF and can use those to consolidate their mental model, but not for newcomers.
>>>>> 5. This document has fewer external references. There’s a balance between referencing sources and providing additional information, and distracting people from the current document. The other three documents will need more references as they will go into more detail.
>>>>> There’s no doubt the result of these changes is much drier than the Tao and therefore runs the risk of putting people to sleep before they finish it so I’m not averse to a bit more personality being added if that’s needed.
>>>>> I am interested to hear what people think of this approach.
>>>>> Jay
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tao-discuss mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss>
>>> -- 
>>> Jay Daley
>>> IETF Executive Director
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tao-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss
>