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

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

On 5/30/13 12:54 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> 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.

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

spt