Re: [Json] Comments on the proposed charter

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 01 March 2013 01:06 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A1B21F891C for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:06:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nCndZ2cxJhYl for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:06:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE2D21F886E for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:06:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2116okW003079; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:06:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1362100015; bh=XM+h9wLRNmehmnawEbDsT+7yIoh4SG8EEvEDdFcpimI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=TLcF5XDbBQY0i9ytHPw1t2fZzsCa6thM0Y8P1SC1WhkgtvD7Zk+wYRLPqbGtGW1tM OwgVkdkOZE6VxxoCyZG6KAj9BC+Y0rlABehNaJBA2OUkh9HJJTMEQPwnn3sm5V0+No c+zVESkFeubT23gM/7X6zaEBPSm6Xp+CC+LYM/i0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1362100015; i=@resistor.net; bh=XM+h9wLRNmehmnawEbDsT+7yIoh4SG8EEvEDdFcpimI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=xx+zaYPYzsvGbityqRRrSNzWFpjcrC21ybmahzi5bjr4CWHBxfDO2iZPQyFYDXk4B hCe4ddqgqEefuP6FWbRWYx5Q/fLxs3LrXekB6EqlwTt1WdL0oWweXhfhOsdr/3uRMl 1+L7dYWZpsQklNmQ5nOLyEnO2+FQyAcdcwk1LCyY=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228165355.0a76fcb0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:00:13 -0800
To: json@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <E0597F3D-773C-4CDD-8087-09B99ADCF156@mnot.net>
References: <E0597F3D-773C-4CDD-8087-09B99ADCF156@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on the proposed charter
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:06:58 -0000

At 17:54 19-02-2013, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>I am somewhat concerned about this. If "community" means a 
>self-selecting group of standards nerds / corporate interests / 
>fringe developers, I am violently against it.
>
>Yes, anyone can come to the table at the IETF, but I question 
>whether the wider JSON community is even aware of this effort. Have 
>we reached out to JSON implementers, for example? Have they joined 
>the list? Do we have representation from the various Open Source 
>frameworks that use JSON?

I agree with what Mark wrote.  This ends up creating social issues 
which affect other work.

Regards,
-sm