@Plats Found one more set of things to knock out, but this is looking really good now.
1 Like
Awesome! have applied those changes.
I don’t understand/agree with this - I thought one of the goals of the redesign was to help point developers towards the documentation. That’s what devs are looking for even before they point an agent at something. I skim the docs first. I don’t think anyone under 30 even knows what “RFC” stands for.
And if another goal of the redesign is to highlight what makes Tari stand out, the documentation is the best way for people, even non-developers (who almost certainly don’t know what a RFC is), to verify that for themselves.
If the motivation for this change was to get people involved in governance/proposals then let’s create a separate link/navbar item and point directly to the Tari Improvement Proposal RFC rfcs/src/TIP-0001_tari_improvement_proposals.md at main · tari-project/rfcs · GitHub or update the readme in the RFC repo with better instructions for submitting a TIP and point them to that.
I’d like to keep the documentation labeled as such.
Thank you! 
@kinkajou Mastodon & Blusky links have been added.
I personally agree with you that Docs is easier to understand and I would say that the goal is to point developers towards the docs. Getting them to participate in governance/proposals from a navbar link is the wrong objective for this (the forum link somewhat achieves this as well imo)
I am not a dev though and so my viewpoint here is bias and not very informed. Happy to do what you guys think is best here.
Recommend to add a Store module for listing official and outstanding demos developed based on Tari L2. Here is an example:
1 Like
This was my suggestion-- the original wording was “Documentation” but I don’t think the RFCs page is documentation in the sense that developers normally think of it. Those are RFCs, and any developer worth their salt knows about the RFCs even if they don’t read them. They know they are dry, technical specifications of what the protocol does, not how you go about actually using an implementation of it.
So pointing at the RFCs and calling them ‘Docs’ mislabels what they are or what a developer would expect to find there. I’d expect to find something like the Ootle guide. ‘Whitepapers’ might fit closer to the crypto terminology, though I don’t think that the RFCs are really in the form of a Whitepaper as we think of them.
The reality is we don’t have one central ‘Docs’ repository, and all the docs we do have are bespoke for their scope. The RFCs are not more docs than the Ootle docs. So having each thing labeled for what it is, like @Plats 's current layout is, is probably the best compromise.
Unifying our docs somehow is a project worth considering. Maybe the wiki would be a good place to do that (not sure, I think at least for the TIPs, the current system is better since every word/change needs to be directly reviewed by the community), but it’s out of scope for what we’re doing today. We can keep modifying the website as the situation changes and we get more organized. But the important part is that it directs visitors to the right place based on their interest.
All of my current contractors/business partners are under 30 and polling them just now not a single one knows what RFC stands for. Asking them what it is and the answer is “some kind of documentation on a protocol” if they know at all. Some of these are former FAANG distributed systems engineers - so they’re plenty capable. I really think there is some kind of generational divide here and/or some sort of square/rectangle deal where “An RFC can be documentation but documentation != RFC”.
And let’s say you are right about developers. What about investors and other community members? Documentation is something a general audience would also read and understand.
So a developer clicks a link labeled ‘Documentation’ and they get an RFC - maybe they’re mildly annoyed? Probably not even? A regular person is probably not even going to click that in the first place. They won’t know where to look for technical details about Tari at all, there is no link to direct them towards their interest of technical understanding at all which is a much bigger problem than a developer getting confused for half a second.
I’m fine with the solution of unifying the docs somewhere else and linking to them separately, the parts of the RFC I really care about here (L1/L2) basically read like a typical crypto wiki already, but I don’t think we should have a website without a link to technical documentation/writing that an average person as well as a developer would consider clicking on.
Basically, I view the entire point of this redesign as a way to bring more people to Tari. If we remove the documentation link, users won’t suddenly become developers reading RFCs. Instead, they’ll just get frustrated and leave the site entirely when they can’t find what they need. A developer is going to click either way.
What’s the ETA on the wiki? I’m inclined to just let this go if I could put an agent on rewriting the base layer RFCs over to the wiki within the next week and then link to that, but I don’t think the site should go without a documentation/wiki link much longer than that especially given recent price action which seems to have brought in new users.
Would you be happier if we instead called it ‘Protocol Docs’?
I don’t think that particular link would be one that would be helpful to investors or most community members. If you’re actually arguing ‘we should remove this link’, or maybe only put it in the footer, fine, but I don’t think the RFCs are where the ‘Documentation’ link should land if there is one just called documentation.
It’s here now, there’s just not much on it yet. I need to onboard you-- will DM you some credentials in a bit. If we’re pointing community members and investors to the wiki and making that our Documentation link, I think that’s fine, so long as we get stuff in it.
A more practical writeup of how to use the implementation/libraries would be great to have there-- I don’t think copying over RFCs to the wiki is going to have the effect we want, but we could certainly link to them from the wiki as part of the documentation there, explaining what they are and what they’re for.
Yes I think that’s better than any of the previous options. Great suggestion 
I always look at the Bitcoin wiki for inspiration as a good technical wiki but I don’t have any strong opinions on what should be included aside from the aforementioned resources documenting how the protocol works. I’m content to follow your lead on that for now.
Edit: I’ve created a new thread here to discuss the wiki so as not to derail this thread.
2 Likes
Amazing thank you for pulling that together. Pretty happy with how it’s come out 
3 Likes
That website is looking really fresh. I’m glad it now shows the people that have supported it too! Nice layout overall 
great job on the new website!
1 Like