[OpenISO] OpenISO.org Core Guidelines

[Lachlan Patrick]

Henrik Sundberg wrote:
> 2007/9/10, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>:
>> ## 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?

I agree, isn't that just passing the buck?

>> 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?

I agree, doesn't that mean you'll have competing parts within a single
"standard"? An objection to OOXML is that it duplicates OpenOffice's
document format (badly). I want fewer standards, and less options within
single standards.

I think the role of any "OpenISO"-like organisation should be to pick
and choose a usable, useful subset of all standards, and maybe subparts
of single standards even. Desirable goals are: no patent issues, GPL
compatibility, non-proprietary formats, human readability where
applicable (e.g. avoid binary blobs within XML if there's an equivalent
way to express the same message without them).

>> ## 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.

I disagree. This is passing the buck again. This, to me, removes the
openness. Closed => behind closed doors, private meetings, unrecorded
conversations. Open => on-line forums, anonymous postings allowed,
public decision making, no private conversations.

>> 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.

I disagree. Even if contractually obliged to be open, the recourse to a
third party muddies the waters considerably. This is a deal breaker for me.

>> ### 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?

Anonymity implies you'll get trolls and paid comments lurking in the
mess, but that's OK if the system doesn't allow such people to vote.
Comments should be able to be freely expressed.

Loki (I don't speak for my employer)