[OpenISO] openiso

[Norbert Bollow]

Janet Hawtin <lucychili at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I think you should turn around the requirements.
> > > The ISO body is having problems because a consumer of their standards
> > > cannot tell what it is good for because there are no clear guarantees
> > > about what they offer.
> >
> > Can you give a possible example of what you mean with a "clear
> > guarantee" and explain how OpenISO.org might arrive at being able to
> > provide it?
> 
> GPL is a licence where people know what they can do with the item.
> That kind of clarity around safe use could be a brand for OpenISO
> If it has anything OpenISO on it you can use it safely long term for
> data interoperability with anything because thats what that group
> values.

But what about the problem of possible submarine patents?

> > Here, with "serious concern" I mean a concern about a specification
> > which has an OpenISO.org rating or is currently being evaluated for a
> > rating, where the concern is serious enough that if it found to be
> > valid, it will lower that specification's rating.
> 
> I would not touch any kind of rating on something you do not approve.
> It provides opportunties for squirrelly marketing folk to say OpenISO
> and product name in the same sentence. If the logo or name is near
> something it should mean it is safe and open. Not that you think it is
> a bit dodgy? Which is likely to end in legal arguments rather than a
> clean idea around what the standard represents?

That sounds like a very good point to me.

Hence it sounds reasonable that OpenISO.org should "evaluate" and
possibly "approve" web-published specifications as "OpenISO.org
approved standards", and in addition assign a "rating" of
"acceptable", "recommended" or "strongly recommended" to such
"OpenISO.org approved standards".

But what to do if it turns out later that something that has been
approved turns out later to not really satisfy the criteria for
approval?

The word "approval" to me sounds like something that isn't going
to be reversed...

Maybe in such a situation use ratings of "discouraged" or "strongly
discouraged"?

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                    http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG  http://SIUG.ch