Re: [Json] Minimal edit proposal, second round

["Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[e-mail]>]

If we have a path forward on JSON+ (or JSON- for that matter), then I
guess I could be ok with this change as a step toward that.  However, I
won't be +1 on the minimal set of known-broken changes until I see the
path for how we're going to get *that* doc completed.

However, I'd almost rather declare defeat on the current charter and skip
to writing the doc that I thought we were signing up for.

On 6/26/13 2:15 PM, "Tim Bray" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Yeah, but our charter clearly doesn¹t 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 won¹t, as is currently happening in Jose, have to write
>explicit language forbidding dupes, etc, into their drafts.  So I¹m 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)
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>On 6/26/13 11:47 AM, "Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]> 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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Joe Hildebrand