[Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 01 March 2013 01:39 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 E586321F8771 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:39:50 -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 SqZdVNc-g3Dw for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:39:50 -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 6ADE021F86FB for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:39:50 -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 r211djFs006648 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:39:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1362101989; bh=waMWoIVtVeqjltByXm1l77CwXUWJcdAuWlsIUActH5c=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=LzDtEcLQt4AqM/lq0s0IZhrvPjwsNYG3kOQ7UyKfIllOziAhRsH+VUoT6wS91mhRg Fr9J3W6W4df27YdYnclSg8TzRsURQndKIA49ApdgM4EaC8mQigw3Y969Yy5ziNpc3n v33o1ry9IZ/6r3TQMMHt1xHSddFA7pYPSn/WAjqE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1362101989; i=@resistor.net; bh=waMWoIVtVeqjltByXm1l77CwXUWJcdAuWlsIUActH5c=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=mszvkTOxh4L7twhX+xMFXkd6CoG7b+fMuwW0YhkEfahCLEumO2OUbILX1TMYb1OB6 ffC5NiXzAoapVhiaOXP2aoJEkf8bUO4eJNaleph5qMO5w+jfXIO4FS43ae0k9SSVO+ 8B+WDvIpdt5urDXn+Ku+qqPcpnqM2kNOeJTUqAlA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:25:08 -0800
To: json@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON
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 01:39:51 -0000

Hello,

Here's a few comments about the proposed JSON charter:

   "There are also a number of other JSON-related proposals for
    Standards Track that would benefit from the community and review
    created by a working group focused on JSON."

What is "community" in the above?

   "During that work, the working group may collect change requests, and
    may choose to propose a more significant revision of the JSON specification
    if there is rough consensus to do so.  Proceeding with such a revision
    will require AD approval, for which the responsible AD may require a
    recharter to get community and IESG review of the proposal."

I suggest removing the above paragraph.  It's easier to stick to 
errata and "correct significant errors and inconsistencies".

I suggest against having an initial list.  It's difficult to predict 
whether people will have the energy to review once the charter has 
been approved.

Regards,
-sm