[Json] On representing what ECMA wants

Mark Miller erights at gmail.com
Tue Jun 18 20:39:43 PDT 2013

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com>wrote:

> cc es-discuss
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>wrote:
>> <two chair hats on>
>> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Douglas Crockford <douglas at crockford.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I think this is the standard that ECMA wants to publish.
>> As you know from our earlier off-list discussions, you do not represent
>> ECMA, nor even TC39, to the IETF, nor even to this WG. Everyone from TC39
>> represents themselves here. Your statement above still implies authority
>> that doesn't exist.
Hi Paul, I'm missing all the context, but from this out of context
fragment, your response seems inappropriate. A statement like Doug's "I
think this is the standard that ECMA wants to publish" sounds to me like
speculation on how TC39 will react to some proposed standard. Whether
coming from someone on TC39 or not, I do not see that any assertion of
authority is involved. Here on es-discuss, both members and non-members of
TC39 speculate and argue all the time on what kinds of things TC39 might
approve of. Member of TC39 participate in these discussions, not to speak
for TC39 as a whole, but to speak a) for themselves as participants in
TC39, and b) as someone who is more informed than most, but still fallible,
speculating about howTC39 might react to something. Perhaps this line gets
blurry sometimes, but a statement like "I think this is the standard that
ECMA wants to publish" seems to me clearly on the non-blurry side of that

If the context changes how all this would be interpreted, my apologies.

>> ECMA and TC39 leadership has had, and probably will continue to have,
>> discussions about whether ECMA wants to have an official position on what
>> they want to see from the IETF. Until we hear that from those higher-ups,
>> no one speaks for ECMA here (and no one speaks for the IETF in TC39).
>> Please try harder to refrain from suggesting that particular technical or
>> process decisions would be what ECMA wants. Thanks in advance.
>> --Matt and Paul
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130618/71e1d62b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list