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.
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130618/6b130a3d/attachment.html>

Paul Hoffman on the [json mailing list](https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json):

> <two chair hats on>
>
> Douglas Crockford 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.
>
> 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.