[Json] On representing what ECMA wants
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 line.
If the context changes how all this would be interpreted, my apologies.
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.
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.
Paul Hoffman on the json mailing list: