Subject: [Json] Pete Resnick's Yes on charter-ietf-json-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 21:54:40 -0700

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-json-00-01: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is an ambiguity in the charter. I am OK with this ambiguity (and
given the likelihood I'm going to be responsible AD for this group, I had
better be), but I wanted to make sure that the IESG was crystal clear on
this: Paragraphs 4 & 5 indicate that the WG has a "goal" of a
"reclassification in place, with minimal changes", and then list fixing
errata, and correcting errors and inconsistencies as such minimal
changes. However, this charter does not explicitly disallow other
changes. It would *not* be a charter violation for the WG to come to
consensus that a change that neither fixes an erratum nor corrects an
error/inconsistency (e.g., a completely new feature) is nonetheless an
acceptable change to make. I'm OK with that, but I want to make sure that
everybody else understands that to be the case.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:09:43 +0200

Pete,

As we are doing a dance with another standards organization, and as this
is a functioning piece of work used throughout the Internet, I would be
very careful about accepting other changes, and I would suggest that the
bar be set high.  In this respect, I'd encourage the removal of the
ambiguity.

Eliot

On 5/30/13 6:54 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 03:07:10 -0700

>bar be set high.  In this respect, I'd encourage the removal of the

I agree with what Eliot mentioned above.

The proposed working group could reach consensus on making a change 
instead of correcting errors and inconsistencies.  It's better to 
close the loophole if the working group is of the opinion that it is 
not a good idea.  Once the document it will be too late to consider 
whether it is a good idea or not as the focus will be on the details 
of the change.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 08:45:54 -0400

> introductory paragraph, however.)

I'm fine with this.  The wg, wg chairs, and the AD will use their 
judgement to determine what a "minimal change" is.

spt

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 07:05:21 -0700

> bar be set high.  In this respect, I'd encourage the removal of the

I do not share Pete's concern, given that it is impossible to define "minimal" without looking at any proposed changes. However, since others do, a possible last-minute change to get rid of "goal" would be:

Current:
   The initial goal of this work is ...
Proposed:
   The initial work is ...

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 07:07:09 -0700

Tolerable risk; let’s trust ourselves not to be stupid. -T

---

From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 15:57:23 +0000

>   The initial goal of this work is ...

Personally, I was ok with the original language; the succeeding paragraph, I thought, made it clear the WG would approach change with a tremendous amount of caution and set the level of effort to ratify those changes accordingly.

However, this phrasing works for me if it alleviates the concerns of others.

- m&m

Matt Miller < [email-masked] >
Cisco Systems, Inc.

---

From: Douglas Crockford <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:16:43 -0700

> bar be set high.  In this respect, I'd encourage the removal of the
I strongly agree with Eliot.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 10:19:50 -0600

> I strongly agree with Eliot.

+1

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/