Well, I think this is responsive to part of my comment, namely that we should discuss common user tasks.
However, I don't think it's responsive to the other part -- which I also take to be Stephen's point -- that we should remove the participant journey text. I have reviewed your proposed change and while I think it's slightly clearer, I simply don't agree that this is really something that should be part of the LLC's strategy. It seems to me that one could think of this in two ways:
- Defining/designing the participant journey. This is typically how this shows up in discussions of the user journey in the UX context. This might or might not be a good idea but seems pretty far from the LLC's remit and much more like the IESG's (if anyone).
- Documenting some typical IETF career paths. I'm not sure how valuable this is as a general matter. The surrounding text suggests that you think of this primarily as a sales tool for potential funders. To the extent to which this is true, I don't think that needs to be called out specially in the strategy; the strategic objective is "recruit funders" and this is just tactics.
In either case, I think this text should be removed.
-Ekr
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/06/2020, at 10:08 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
Added issue
https://github.com/ietf-llc/strategy-2020-consultation/issues/44 "No mention of need to better understand user flows in order to inform the works of the Tools team and TAS"
and addressed it by adding a new transformation and some accompanying text
https://github.com/ietf-llc/strategy-2020-consultation/commit/b9841bb6b4c72515fb24c556ff6a49767cc5d1e5#diff-ace2c9f1dd155e5220c2a50de0c79018
Jay
>
> -Ekr
>
>
--
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@xxxxxxxx
