Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Fri, 01 March 2013 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.lanthaler@gmx.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 2FCEE21F9122 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:01:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
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 V1jdS1WJCp7l for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:01:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8F821F910B for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:01:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.17]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LfDpm-1UZWPl1gGu-00okOh for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:01:01 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Mar 2013 18:01:01 -0000
Received: from 84-115-182-43.dynamic.surfer.at (EHLO Vostro3500) [84.115.182.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp017) with SMTP; 01 Mar 2013 19:01:01 +0100
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX192EOUeIOx2JBpXdWMPtpOUzACEsOJ6OpftolMeQR d5eJ4hPG7m5BeX
From: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: <json@ietf.org>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> <CAC4RtVCWPp1LA_NCqdzpRetPbsoZ=fBb0APWr8=MoJqe8RxkTQ@mail.gmail.com> <8CD7BE2E-6824-4421-A021-BB3BBBA056D5@vpnc.org> <CALaySJJjsHZn5=_WgYwSOR-urHEiwXqYZ0i6shEuTNMn=TNWSw@mail.gmail.com> <5130D12C.2000004@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <5130D12C.2000004@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:00:53 +0100
Message-ID: <01c101ce16a6$b7fb8760$27f29620$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac4Wlj6Cmax15ETSSa2IQ/LuzKLzVAAEGCog
Content-Language: de
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
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 18:01:03 -0000

On Friday, March 01, 2013 5:03 PM Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
 
> On 3/1/13 8:58 AM, Barry Leiba 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.
> >
> > I've edited the charter proposal on the appsawg wiki:
> > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/JSON
> 
> +1 modulo a few typos here and there. Mind if I fix them on the wiki
> page?


+1



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler