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

"Pete Resnick" <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Thu, 30 May 2013 04:54 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
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 21AFE21F937B; Wed, 29 May 2013 21:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o3obTmg5J-lp; Wed, 29 May 2013 21:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDC321F929F; Wed, 29 May 2013 21:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.50
Message-ID: <20130530045440.13528.48061.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 21:54:40 -0700
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: [Json] Pete Resnick's Yes on charter-ietf-json-00-01: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 30 May 2013 04:54:41 -0000

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.