[OpenISO] OpenISO.org Core Guidelines

[Henrik Sundberg]

2007/9/10, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>:
> Regarding specifications which do not satisfy the criteria for
> approval as a standard, OpenISO.org evaluates only concerns about
> issues which are in themselves serious enough to justify (if the
> concern is found to be valid) refusal of approval as a standard.

I like this. It means that we don't need hundreds of comments for
OOXML. We just need a few main reasons. If these are fixed there will
be a bigger effort to see if the proposal is good enough.

> ## Working-Groups ##
> In order to prevent to wasting too much money on dealing with trolls,
> those who have taken positions which are found to be frivolous will
> after wards have to pay themselves for getting their disputes
> resolved.  The same applies to anyone who engages in conflict-bombing
> (initiating many conflicts simultaneously.)

Nice!

> ## Decision-making Processes and Requirements ##
> Therefore, OpenISO.org adopts the rule that all disgreements which
> cannot be resolved by means of Working-Group consensus processes must
> be addressed by means of an independent, professional evaluation of
> the relevant facts.

But who are better than the group members to do this evaluation?
Isn't it just like invalidating the working group and start a new one?

> If it turns out that there are several justifiable viewpoints, the
> proponents of the various possible approaches can all get their
> preferred solutions equally endorsed by OpenISO.org provided that the
> openness and maturity requirements are fulfilled.

Doesn't this mean that the standards will contain parts that do the
same thing? And increase the cost of implementing the standard?
Do you have an example where this is good?

> Maturity requirements include that there should be a BSD-, Apache- or
> LGPL-licensed reference implementation

I'd like to add the Boost-license to this list
http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt

> ## Dispute Resolution ##
>
> Ultimately OpenISO.org intends to outsource the dispute resolution
> process to a legally independent "Decision Consulting Services" (DCS)
> business.  The DCS company will have a conditionally-exclusive
> contract in the sense that as long as the DCS company provides an
> excellent quality of service at a reasonable price

Aha. This might do the trick.

>
> The start-up plan for all this is that initially, the founder of
> OpenISO.org takes care of the DCS function until the time
> requirements for this function become too great for that und
> OpenISO.org manages to acquire sufficient financial resources for
> being able to outsource this function.  At that stage the founder
> of OpenISO.org may name the company that becomes the initial DCS
> company.  In particular, at that time the OpenISO.org founder will
> have the right to name a privately-held company of his own for this
> function.

A good start.

> ### Pseudonymous Participation ###
>
> Pseudonymous participation in Working-Groups is allowed.  While
> Working-Group participants must inform OpenISO.org of their real name,
> address and employer (if any),

Even if the participation has nothing to do with the employer?

> ## Commitment to Free Software ##
>
> The software which OpenISO.org will use must be "open" publicly
> available Free Software.

It should be enough to mandate open file formats for the tool. It's
not a specific tool that should be mandated.

/$