Update playbook.md

[kianenigma]

I started reading, and made some light changes, eventually leading to more chunky suggestions.

First, see which of these points you agree at a "topic" level, so the question would be: should the topic be included or not. Then, we can consider how, if you agree.

I predict the outcome of this PR would be that you take some of my changes, and the rest I will formulate into my own playbook.

But if you happen to agree with all, I am happy to contribute here.

I didn't put much effort into references yet, but I am sure we can find good ones for all.

[shawntabrizi]

I think in its current form, this looks more like a fork than a contribution to what I had in mind of the playbook.

Here is some specific feedback to start the conversation:

• All bullet points should be based on facts and have references to follow up on those facts.
• I really dont like in a section titled "what is polkadot" that we must also seperately define "what is polkadot 2.0" and "what is polkadot JAM".
  • This very clearly highlights the problem we have in polkadot to begin with.
  • We should be defining polkadot in terms and ways which apply to all "versions" of polkadot, and is as relevant to Polkadot 1.0, as it is to 2.0, JAM, or whatever the next iteration of Polkadot will be.
  • Someone reading this page should not be exposed to these level of details. Perhaps what we should add to the repo is a roadmap.md, which i think can go into all these gritty details
• I avoided the term "parachain" for the same reasons stated above, in that services more aptly capture the direction polkadot is going, and parachains is a subset of services afaik
• not a fan of how you split up the unique things of polkadot. if you don't agree they are all unique, perhaps we should remove some, and add others, but again, as a playbook, i think these points are fair. if we want to clarify you CAN do some f these things on other modern stacks, we could put that information in the references.
• The layer story is terrible, and i suggest we move away from it as fast as possible.
  • creating a brand new term L0, and then applying it to polkadot has only ever been a mistake.
  • The meaning of "layers" and where "layers start" is also really dumb imo
  • We really should be using specific terms like: sequencers, security hubs, settlement layers, etc...
  • Who cares what layer anything is at? it is all about their functionality.
  • Polkadot is a security hub and settlement layer.
• I have strong worries that "the word blockspace is not accurate" is again falling into the trap of making a new definition which only applies to Polkadot.
  • Blockspace is absolutely still one important component of Polkadot, so we should continue to use this terminology.
  • If blockspace does not capture some part of in-core / on-chain (and you would need to clarify to me more where it does not capture), then we should introduce some concept in addition to blockspace, not coretime which is a wrapper word for two concepts.
  • My guess is there is already some word out there which defines what we are looking for, and we should use it.

[shawntabrizi]

As a principle, I would want the playbook to resonate with someone who has never been exposed to Polkadot before, and perhaps only has the high level notion of the blockchain ecosystem.

I think you fall into the trap of trying to clarify or go into too much detail, which is good, but needs a different home.

I think there are more pages we can add to this repo, such as:

• roadmap
• glossary / jargon
• perhaps a few deep dive pages, in the same format as your blog posts

[kianenigma]

Okay, TLDR I can foresee that this is better fitted as a fork.

I once again invite you to see if there are any details that you want to adopt from this. Otherwise, I'd close this for now and pursue a fork of some sort in the future.

I think you fall into the trap of trying to clarify or go into too much detail, which is good, but needs a different home.

This adds up to my personal reflection as of late as well. I am better at going down the rabbit holes of explaining things in a concise and accurate manner: I enjoy doing this, and I think I am good at it :)

This type of content is best fitted in something like a booklet than a playbook.