Re: [Json] Last call: JSON charter

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> 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 a recharter to get community and IESG review of the proposal.
>
> A "more significant revision" of JSON than that described before this text will,
> by its nature, not be backwards compatible, so it won't be JSON.
...
> I think this paragraph should be deleted.

I agree.  Actually, I put that paragraph in during the very earliest
stab at a charter, mostly to head off demands for major changes by
setting them as out of scope and saying that we'd have to recharter if
anyone wanted to do that.  As it turns out, we don't have those
demands, or don't seem to, and I think the rest of the charter says
what needs to be said about the sorts of changes that are in scope.

>> There are also various proposals for JSON extensions and related standards.
>> The working group will consider those proposals only after the initial work
>> is done, and must recharter with specific work items for any additional work
>> it might select.
>
> At the risk of repeating myself, I do not think that a generic "JSON Working Group"
> that takes on any work that happens to use this format is good engineering. I know
> that this text is only advisory, but it's tilting the table in that direction.
>
> I think this paragraph should be deleted. Alternatively, the phrase "JSON extensions
> and related standards" should be changed to something like "JSON extensions for
> reuse by other standards" or similar. I.e., "related standards" is a charter license
> too far.

This text is acknowledging that there are a bunch of proposals, and
saying that none of them are in scope for this.  If any of them are to
be done, they'd be done in either a rechartered working group or a new
working group.

You're saying, I guess, that one or more new working groups that are
focused on specific proposals are better than something generic to
address "a bunch of JSON-related work", and I agree with that.  About
the specific text that's in the charter, I'm ambivalent: I have no
problem with leaving it there, but I agree that the charter already
constrains the work.  We usually put this sort of text in there to
help the chairs, by giving them something clear to point to that says,
"I'm sorry, but your proposal is explicitly out of scope in our
charter.  Maybe we can discuss it later, after we get our chartered
work done."

In any case, given that we're really pushing to make chartering easier
and faster, the need to recharter working groups for follow-on work,
rather than chartering anew for that work, is lessened.

>> There are also a number of other JSON-related proposals for
>> Standards Track that would benefit from review from both the IETF
>> and the larger JSON-using communities created by a working group
>> focused on JSON.
>
> I agree with the sentiment, but isn't the review function already fulfilled
> by the apps directorate?

Not as I see it.  The Apps Directorate mostly provides a review or two
during last call, where we try to select reviewers who have at least
some expertise in the topic that especially needs review.  The
paragraph you cite is stating a need for much broader review than
that, and for review and participation throughout the development, not
just at the end.

Barry