[OpenISO] OpenISO.org Core Guidelines

[Std Lib0]

On 9/10/07, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>
> If after completion of OpenISO.org's evaluation of a specification
> further concerns are raised, or if the validity of the justification
> for the rating is challenged, these comments will be evaluated, and
> if it is found that the facts justify such a step, the rating will be
> adjusted.


this adjustment possibility makes me wonder if the prefixes STD and PR
should be allowed in the process identifier. shouldn't they should be a
suffix after the
version number?


>
> The fundamental decision-making principle is of course that decisions
> should be made in a fact-based manner.  The fundamental question is:
> What happens when there is no consensus about an appropriate
> fact-based decision? In most existing standardization organizations,
> at that stage the decision-making process either breaks down or the
> committee members vote.  Both of these mechanisms are inadequate
> because is the first case a company like Microsoft can prevent any
> decision it doesn't like by means of breaking the consensus, and in
> the second case it can manipulate every vote by means of telling
> enough "gold certified" (economically dependent) partner companies to
> vote, like it happened in the case of the ISO/IEC evaluation of OOXML.


I don't agree with Microsoft practices much as all here probably, but
citing its name in this sentence doesn't make it too 'personal'?
Maybe 'a resourceful rogue company' is a better phrase.

by establishing OpenISO.org as a foundation under Swiss law with a
> strong requirement in the bylaws to switch to a different DCS company
> if the DCS company is ever found to be corrupt or otherwise not up to
> an excellent standard of reliability.  In such a situation, the new
> DCS company must be strongly different from all previous DCS companies
> in that a new DCS company must be chosen where no board member or
> executive has served as board member or executive of one of
> OpenISO.org's previous DCS companies.  (Unlike OpenISO.org itself,
> which will be a foundation, the DCS company will be a normal company.)


well, it's expected that a corrupt DCS' _current_ decision will be
discarded,
but this is not explicit. what about its past decisions?


## Commitment to Free Software ##
>
> The software which OpenISO.org will use must be "open" publicly
> available Free Software.  The reason for this is as follows: When
> the  software which a standardization organization uses to implement
> its workflow is proprietary (is this the case with the "livelink"
> system used by ISO?) that has the effect of creating a form of
> lock-in to the standardization organization which at odds with the
> fundamental principle of openness that is so important for legitimate
> standardization processes:  Whenever a group of people feel that their
> concerns and views are not properly taken into account by the existing
> standardization organizations, they must have the freedom to fork the
> standardization process to create their own specification,
> endorsement, problem report or amendment documents.


I really like the ease to fork. Not only as a healthy pressure for openiso
to provide
excellence of service, but also because this will enormously help local
governments
to setup cheaper regional standard bodies by directly drawing on procedures
and
software from openiso. A standards body should be legitimate because there's
a
group of people believing in its process, not because nobody has the
expertise to
replicate its processes.

btw, this reminds me of something: what is the use, reproduction,
distribution etc
exact license of the documents openiso is producing, like this draft, its
procedures etc?
is openiso going to adopt a specific e.g. creative-commons license for its
documents?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://OpenISO.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070911/4a427f4a/attachment.htm