add post about ietf json schema cooperation

[gregsdennis]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

blog post

Issue Number:

No issue. This post arose from a conversation in the TSC Slack channels.

Screenshots/videos:

n/a

If relevant, did you update the documentation?

n/a

Summary

Adds a blog post communicating discussion with IETF, cooperated efforts, and future expectations.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

n/a

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

cc: @handrews @lisad We would also appreciate your thoughts on this post.

[github-actions]

built with Refined Cloudflare Pages Action

⚡ Cloudflare Pages Deployment

Name	Status	Preview	Last Commit
website	✅ Ready (View Log)	Visit Preview	af1121b

[Relequestual]

Minor suggestion, but non-blocking. Thanks for writing!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (07e6bc8) to head (af1121b).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main     #2435   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           31        31           
  Lines          695       695           
  Branches       215       215           
=========================================
  Hits           695       695           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[lisad]

thanks for working on this - looks good to me!

[karenetheridge]

just a few minor wording fixes.

[jdesrosiers]

I think there's an elephant in the room that's not addressed in this post. We documented in ADRs and blog posts our reasons for moving away from our sudo-IETF process. It's awkward to announce that we're now joining an IETF working group without mention of our flipflop or why our reasons for changing our approach don't seem to matter anymore. We should give some explanation. Maybe we can say something like, we think the benefits of working with an SDO out weight the aspects of the IETF process that aren't ideal for JSON Schema and since they're interested now we want to take advantage of that opportunity.

[benjagm]

Thanks a lot Greg. Looks good to me.

[jdesrosiers]

@gregsdennis it looks like you accidentally committed a second blog.

Excellent improvements in this iteration. There's just one section that I think needs a bit of work. I left my suggestion inline.

I still think it's awkward that we don't discuss the reversal of our previous plans to move away from publishing I-Ds. And, it would be nice if we could provide a little more about the working group's expected plan/direction. But, I don't really know what to suggest since we don't have good answers to either of those questions to provide readers right now.

[gregsdennis]

it looks like you accidentally committed a second blog.

yeah, definitely a work in progress. Didn't mean to push it.

[jdesrosiers]

Looks good.

[github-actions]

Hi @gregsdennis! Thanks a lot for your contribution!

I noticed that the following required information is missing or incomplete: issue reference

Please update the PR description to include this information. You can find placeholders in the PR template for these items.

Thanks a lot!