[Json] On representing what ECMA wants
Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Tue Jun 18 20:57:00 PDT 2013
Making such things clear when they would otherwise not be sounds like a
wise policy. No disagreement there. A few extra words are cheap compared to
the costs of ambiguity. Thanks.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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.
> --Paul Hoffman
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss