[Json] On representing what ECMA wants
paul.hoffman at gmail.com
Tue Jun 18 20:51:19 PDT 2013
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Mark Miller <erights at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
If that's truly the case, such speculation from a random person is fine.
Clearly, Douglas is not a random person: he is both the author of RFC 4627
and a TC39 member. If he meant to make that statement as neither, he needs
to have said so.
> 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 line.
Different SDOs have different customs, and in the IETF, custom says that
you make clear when you are speculating and when you are representing.
Douglas' earlier statement about ECMA was misinterpreted by WG members, so
it felt worthwhile for the chairs to make clear who is and is not
representing whom to the IETF.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss