Javascript disabled? Like other modern websites, the IETF Datatracker relies on Javascript. Please enable Javascript for full functionality.

Javascript Object Notation
charter-ietf-json-02

Yes

(Barry Leiba)

(Pete Resnick)

(Richard Barnes)

(Spencer Dawkins)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)

(Benoît Claise)

(Brian Haberman)

(Gonzalo Camarillo)

(Jari Arkko)

(Joel Jaeggli)

(Martin Stiemerling)

(Sean Turner)

(Stephen Farrell)

(Stewart Bryant)

(Ted Lemon)

Ballots:

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-01 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"

Barry Leiba Former IESG member

Yes

Yes (for -00-01) Unknown

Pete Resnick Former IESG member

Yes

Yes (2013-05-29 for -00-01) Unknown

There is an ambiguity in the charter. I am OK with this ambiguity (and given the likelihood I'm going to be responsible AD for this group, I had better be), but I wanted to make sure that the IESG was crystal clear on this: Paragraphs 4 & 5 indicate that the WG has a "goal" of a "reclassification in place, with minimal changes", and then list fixing errata, and correcting errors and inconsistencies as such minimal changes. However, this charter does not explicitly disallow other changes. It would *not* be a charter violation for the WG to come to consensus that a change that neither fixes an erratum nor corrects an error/inconsistency (e.g., a completely new feature) is nonetheless an acceptable change to make. I'm OK with that, but I want to make sure that everybody else understands that to be the case.

Richard Barnes Former IESG member

Yes

Yes (for -00-01) Unknown

Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member

Yes

Yes (for -00-01) Unknown

Adrian Farrel Former IESG member

No Objection

No Objection (2013-05-26 for -00-01) Unknown

Nit...

"It makes sense to move RFC 4627 onto the Standards Track."

Of course it makes sense, but I don't know that it really needs to said
in the charter (are there other parts of the charter that don't make
sense ;-)

Benoît Claise Former IESG member

No Objection