Is it a "journey"?

[coopdanger]

Seeing some of the feedback about the participant journey text, I think this should have more of a functional focus than a substantive focus. When I originally read this I interpreted it as answering questions of the sort like: "If someone wants to know how to engage in X part of the IETF process, how do they find out?" Right now, if you know nothing about I-D authoring tools, for example, it requires a complicated and disjoint search through disparate information sources to figure out. Same thing, to some extent, if you want to understand, e.g., what a WG chair does, or what a non-WG mailing list is, etc.

So I think this would be better if it didn't focus on any "journeys," but rather on how to functionally support the ways that people engage in the IETF. It should be easier for someone unfamiliar with the IETF to come to understand how to do things in the IETF -- not how to get community consensus for their document, but how to author the document and where to talk about it and what the steps are in the publication process. That would be a nice transformation to see.

[JayDaley]

Is that already covered by the follow transformation added in response to another issue?

| 23 | Inconsistent understanding and documentation of user flows for common tasks | → | Good understanding and documentation of user flows for all common tasks |

[coopdanger]

No, because it isn't only (or primarily) about tools.