Add ADR for decoupling from IETF

adr/2022-08-decouple-from-ietf.md

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+# Decoupling from IETF
+
+* Status: accepted
+* Deciders: @jdesrosiers @relequestual @awwright @handrews
+* Date: 2022-08-17
+
+Related Issues:
+* https://github.com/orgs/json-schema-org/discussions/69 - This issue is about
+  dropping the "draft" prefix from our releases. This ADR doesn't cover that,
+  but much of the discussion about whether or not to decouple from IETF is in
+  that discussion.
+* This topic has been discussed in many other places as well that are difficult
+  to link to here including Slack, Twitter, OCWMs, and conference discussions.
+
+## Context and Problem Statement
+
+Currently JSON Schema loosely follows the IETF Internet-Draft (I-D) process for
+spec development and releases but isn't associated with any IETF working group.
+JSON Schema is an individual draft. That means it isn't on a standards track
+with IETF and IETF is not involved nor supports the spec in any way other than
+hosting the canonical version of our I-Ds. Our perceived involvement with IETF
+causes confusion and misunderstanding within our community in the cases were our
+practices and the realities of our situation deviate from a typical IETF I-D
+lifecycle. The thing that makes our situation different than a typical I-D is
+that our "drafts" are intended for use in production.
+
+## Decision Drivers
+
+* IETF's draft versioning system doesn't work for JSON Schema and we stopped
+  using it to version our releases a while ago. We now use date based versioning
+  and even have more than one draft submission per release (the initial release
+  and the patch release).
+* The IETF process is optimized for working on a draft until it's done and then
+  disbanding. In some cases, the RFC may be revisited and revised in the future,
+  but this is rare and generally contains little more than clarifications and
+  reference updates. JSON Schema is not like that. JSON Schema is more like a
+  programming language. When it stops evolving, it will lose its relevance.
+  When we finish a release of JSON Schema, we don't disband, we start work on
+  the next release.
+* Since the project resumed activity after the gap following draft-04, every one
+  of our releases is expected to be used in production and will be depended on
+  for many years forward. This is not consistent with normal IETF drafts. Even
+  if we don't publicly use the term "draft", we're still using the IETF I-D
+  system in a way that's not intended.
+* Under IETF, JSON Schema fits under the category of "draft". The community has
+  repeatedly told us that they perceive this to meant that JSON Schema
+  "incomplete" and not "not ready for production use". This is the wrong message
+  for us to be sending as all of our releases are intended to be used in
+  production. This ADR doesn't decide whether or not to drop the "draft" from
+  our releases, but decoupling from IETF gives us that option.
+* Several members of the JSON Schema team have interacted with JSON-related IETF
+  working groups. Some of these interactions demonstrated an indifference or
+  hostility to JSON Schema, and a preference for projects taking a different
+  approach. Equally important was a lack of any active interest or constructive
+  engagement. Finally, we were informed that any schema project for JSON would
+  not necessarily start from JSON Schema as a base, indicating that a "JSON
+  Schema" working group would quite likely not involve JSON Schema itself. This
+  impression has been reinforced by observing the amount of change introduced to
+  JSON Path as a consequence of its adoption by an IETF working group. While we
+  have a good relationship with the relatively new HTTPAPIs working group, the
+  combination of these other experiences with other mismatches between our
+  project and the IETF process contributes to our reluctance to move forward
+  through the iETF.
+
+## Considered Options
+
+1. Continue to submit I-Ds, while using our customized process with no intention
+   of pursing standards track RFC status.
+2. Go all-in with IETF and pursue a standards track RFC with the IETF. The
+   approach would be to describe the essential characteristics of evaluating a
+   JSON Schema: the keywords that everybody is guaranteed to support, and any
+   extension mechanisms.
+3. Join W3C and pursue a standards track with them using their process.
+4. Decouple completely from any standards organization and come up with our own
+   specification development lifecycle (SDLC) model inspired by well established
+   projects with an SDLC that more closely meets or needs.
+
+## Decision Outcome
+
+Our decision is to go with Option 4 and decouple from standards organizations
+that don't fit our needs. We don't currently have a plan for what to replace
+IETF with, but we are currently investigating how other established projects do
+their SDLC and will likely choose one to emulate and adapt to our needs.
+Although we don't have a replacement solution in place yet, we are confident
+that continuing to abuse the IETF I-D process or conforming to a standards
+organization process that doesn't fit our needs is not the way to go.
+
+However, we still plan to use the IETF process to register the media types
+defined by JSON Schema with IANA. This effort is currently in progress with the
+HTTPAPIs working group.
+
+The decision to not use IETF applies only to the main specification documents
+and not necessarily supporting components we have defined or will define in the
+future. Currently our only such component is Relative JSON Pointer, but there
+could be others in the future. These components will be examined on a case by
+case basis and we may choose an IETF standards path for those components if it
+makes sense.
+
+Option 2 and 3 are still on the table if we feel it makes sense when we get to a
+more stable place in the future. The main concern is the pain this process is
+causing while we are in this unusual phase of simultaneous unstable growth and
+production use. Standardization isn't out of the question, it's just not
+productive for us to be developing JSON Schema within the constraints of a
+standards organizations procedures.
+
+Option 1 was rejected because it ignores the problems we've been facing and
+provides no solution. No one wants this.
+
+Option 2 was rejected for several reasons. If we go all in with IETF, we would
+have to join a working group and treat JSON Schema like a normal I-D. That means
+we would have to start treating drafts as drafts, which means not recommending
+production use until we are ready for RFC and not releasing a new
+production-ready version of JSON Schema until we've reached RFC status. Most of
+the core contributors don't believe that we are close enough to an RFC-ready
+release that we want to commit to not being able to issue another release until
+that happens.
+
+There are other concerns including skepticism that even with an extension
+mechanism that the RFC wouldn't need regular updates, which is not normal
+practice for an RFC and would require significant effort to issue a replacing
+RFC. Without a concrete proposal on the scope of the RFC and the extension
+mechanisms, it's hard to commit to this path.
+
+Additionally, many of the core contributors have found working with the IETF
+unproductive and have concerns about JSON Schema getting deeper involved without
+compelling enough reason. Most agree that the reasons are not sufficiently
+compelling at this point.
+
+Option 3 was rejected because it has the same problems as Option 2 except that
+we don't have the same unpleasant history with W3C than we do with IETF.
+
+### Positive Consequences
+
+* Decoupling from IETF allows us to distance ourselves from the assumptions that
+  people make about JSON Schema because they assume it works like a typical I-D.
+* Decoupling from IETF allows us to customize our SDLC model to what works best
+  for JSON Schema.
+
+### Negative Consequences
+
+* If we don't go the standardization route with IETF or W3C, we lose access to
+  their expert review process.
+* Not being associated with a recognized standards organization such as IETF,
+  W3C, or IEEE reduces the credibility of JSON Schema in the eyes of some.
+  However, we have received feedback that our membership with OpenJS/Linux
+  Foundation provides the credibility that we need.
+* One of the benefits of an RFC is other standards can normatively reference it,
+  and use JSON Schema to define their JSON-based syntaxes. However, we have
+  received feedback from people involved in standards development that told us
+  that they were comfortable referencing OpenAPI's self published specification
+  in their standards and that OpenAPI's membership with the Linux Foundation was
+  an important aspect of what makes them comfortable doing so. JSON Schema is a
+  member of the OpenJS Foundation, which is a sub-group of the Linux Foundation,
+  so we expect standards developers to be just as comfortable referencing JSON
+  Schema as they are referencing OpenAPI.
+* Defining our own SLDC process will be a lot of work and none of us have
+  expertise in defining such a process. However, we can take inspiration from
+  existing well established projects and we would have the freedom to update our
+  process as we learn what works and what doesn't.