Re: [tao-discuss] Review Request for Possible Revision of the Tao of the IETF

[Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for this. I fully agree. The name 'Tao' is not very helpful and the document itself is too long (something which we tried to address). 

However, I do think it is useful to have a document people can reference which holds the main processes and procedures of the IETF which is also citeable. This would be an argument to make the Tao (which would then not be called 'Tao' anymore) an RFC and have smaller more accessible bits on the website.

Best,

Niels

On 14 Apr 2022, 16:03, at 16:03, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I would like to note that there is some kind of tradition or cultural
>identity of this community connected to the Tao. However having said
>this, Jay, I think your analysis is right: it doesn’t serve the
>intended audience well and there is not one intended audience. I’m all
>in to reorganise all content related to participation on the webpage in
>a more useful way but then let’s do that and just not call it Tao
>anymore.
>
>> On 14. Apr 2022, at 16:53, Salz, Rich
><rsalz=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Very nice analysis!
>> 
>>>   While I admire the effort that has gone into the Tao, I think we
>need to move on from this style of documentation.  Replacing it with
>several smaller documents/sites/pages would be much more useful: "Guide
>to the role and structure of the IETF", "Guide to participating in IETF
>working groups", "Guide to making the most of IETF meetings", and so
>on.
>> 
>> Works for me.  I am happy to completely stop working on it.  Although
>what's on the website is seriously cringe-worthy. How that should be
>addressed I leave to you. I note that the RFC requiring IESG review is
>informational, not even BCP. Hint, hint.
>> 
>>