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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

The below note on the content of the Tao seems very relevant.  I 
particularly think the point of getting someone who is not deeply in the 
community to be the pen-holder is well taken.

Still, because this is the communities face to newcomers I would like it 
to be reviewed and approved by the community.  It seems like the content 
(in whatever pieces are appropriate, could still be in an Informational 
RFC, with the presentation left to professionals.  Maybe there is 
another way to do so.

Your note (and one recent one from Rich) are the first efforts to 
explain why some other process may be appropriate.   I

Yours,

Joel

On 6/3/2022 12:58 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Taking a step back from the discussion of the Tao, one of the most
> common complaints one hears from newcomers to the IETF is how hard it
> is to come up to speed on some of our--honestly kind of
> confusing--processes and practices.
>
> IMO the resources that we point people to should lean into being
> approachable, and I don't think a long document like the Tao really
> fits that bill. A big part of the problem, IMO, is the urge to be
> complete. For instance, I see that in the section on "RFCs and
> Internet Drafts" the Tao has a whole section in "IANA Considerations".
> This is of course important information at some level, but it's not
> information that a newcomer typically needs, even at the point
> where they are writing their first I-Ds.
>
> So I agree with Rich that we should deprecate the Tao as a whole
> document and instead restructure the material in a way more suited
> to helping people get going quickly rather than the linear fashion
> of the current document; one nice feature of the Web is that it
> supports this.
>
> As to who ought to write it, I would observe that writing this kind of
> tutorial material is different from writing technical specifications.
> While I'm sure some people in our community have those skills, it's
> not clear to me it ought to be community developed and in particular
> I think it should be subject to far less rigorous review than RFCs
> and should instead just be easily changed and refines. I'd certainly
> be open to seeing a treatment from someone who was less deeply embedded
> in our community and thus maybe found it easier to empathize with
> newcomers.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 9:41 AM Salz, Rich 
> <rsalz=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     >   I have read the Tao.  I have directed multiple newcomers to
>     read the
>         Tao.  Some have said it was useful.  None have complained
>     about it.
>
>     Good to know, thans.
>
>     >  We are debating how the
>         content should be developed / agreed for the community
>
>     Some of us (well at least me, but I know others who agree) are
>     debating whether or not the community should be involved in the
>     content creation.
>
>
>     -- 
>     Gendispatch mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>