IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 01 March 2013 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 F0CE321E809E for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:33:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.683
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.683 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.084, 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 APncrZuGGg6y for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EA521E8051 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21FXU03096064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:33:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCWPp1LA_NCqdzpRetPbsoZ=fBb0APWr8=MoJqe8RxkTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 07:33:31 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8CD7BE2E-6824-4421-A021-BB3BBBA056D5@vpnc.org>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> <CAC4RtVCWPp1LA_NCqdzpRetPbsoZ=fBb0APWr8=MoJqe8RxkTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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 15:33:36 -0000

On Mar 1, 2013, at 5:49 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> Specifically, then, you suggest that there be only the one item: make
> 4627 Standards Track?  And then require recharter to add any other
> items, which would be listed as individual work items in any recharter
> proposal?

That seems reasonable, given how excited people get about the "any other work items" and how that excitement could delay or derail the main reason you wanted the WG. The recharter effort can start after 4627bis document is in IETF Last Call. It's not like we're in any new rush for particular work.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status