On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:44 PM Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/06/2020, at 2:26 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
- I can't see how all the stuff about "participant journey"
isn't either waffle or over-reach, e.g. if "Fully documented
participant journey" meant that the someone thinks IETFers are
going to only follow paths set-out in such a document, that's
silly and over-reach. If it doesn't mean that then what's it
for? I suggest removing the term and replacing each occurrence
with whatever is really meant in each case (or with nothing).
(And then re-reviewing.)My answer may unintentionally come across as rude.It appears that you are unfamiliar with the concept of user journeys (which, as Ekr has pointed out, is renamed to "participant journey" to be more IETF specific). These are an important tool in understanding how people interact with systems, whether those systems are organisational or technological. The details of a user journey are quite simple, as explained in the strategy:"a map of the different stages of participation (e.g. newcomer, leadership), at what stages people start their participation in the IETF, how they transition between them and at what stages they end their participation. "
Given that you named me I want to flag that I actually don't think that the effort you describe here is particularly appropriate in this case. Trying to think of the entire spectrum of participation as a set of stages that people go through is not helpful IMO. It's not really a linear process and people want different things at different points in their careers and that's fine, so I don't think that a map of this kind is going to generate much insight.
As I said, I do think it's important to have clear maps for how the individual tasks that people want to do work and where they go wrong, which is sort of a small scale version of this.
-Ekr
