[OpenISO] OpenISO.org Core Guidelines

[Thomas Bader]

* Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> [070910 17:37]:
> [...]
> In addition to deciding whether specifications fulfil OpenISO.org's
> criteria for standards, during the evluation process a rating is
                                       ^ typo
> assigned to each specification.
> [...]
> There is a variety of reasons why a specification's rating may change.
> It is possible that a serious issue has been overlooked or a mistake 
> made during a specification's initial evulation.  It is also possible
                                          ^^^ typo
> for problems to get resolved outside the specification itself, for
> example patent problems can go away when a patent expires or when a
> sufficiently broad patent license is granted.
> [...]
> In the case of OpenISO.org, these working-groups are implemented by
> means of "discussion" email mailing lists.  For each Working-Group,
> the subscribers of the mailing list are the members of the
> Working-Group.

I think it would also make sense to require that all those
mailing list archives are freely browseable and searchable
through the web.

> Maturity requirements include that there should be a BSD-, Apache- or
> LGPL-licensed reference implementation and that the spec has been
> reviewed for cross-cultural applicability and with regard to its
> impact on people with disabilities.

Somehow, this sounds strange to me ... "_requirements_ include
that there _should_". Maybe it needs to be clarified what
should/can/must means in an OpenISO context?

In my opinion we should not be limited to only three types of
licenses. What about all the other OSI certified licenses?
What about implementations in the public domain?

> ### 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), and must provide the required patent
> non-assertion convenants, OpenISO.org promises to not disclose this
> information to third parties as long as the patent non-assertion
> convenants are not violated.

I think that the "disclose employer" sentences in this draft
are a bit indistinct. Would you require this in any case
or only in cases where someone has an employeer that has
something to do with the discussed standards?

Regards, Thomas.