Re: [Json] Minimal edit proposal, second round

Yeah, but our charter clearly doesn’t let us fix JSON.  What we need is to
do something like this, then re-charter to produce a doc that provides real
guidance, so that, as someone in this thread pointed out, other Working
Groups will have something to point to and won’t, as is currently happening
in Jose, have to write explicit language forbidding dupes, etc, into their
drafts.  So I’m in favor of doing this minimal point-out-the-problems work
and moving on. -T

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <
jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:

> On 6/26/13 11:47 AM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>
> >First, the proposal is an alternative to the proposals so far in the WG,
> >not in addition to them. That is, the list of changes in the proposal
> >would be the *entire* set of changes; even the current document title
> >remains the same.
>
> With that clarification, I'm full -1.  Someone else will just have to fix
> the problems in 4627ter one day, and they're not going to have any easier
> of a time doing it that today.
>
> There's hard work ahead.  We're the right people for the job.  Let's stop
> trying to avoid our duty.
>
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>