[OpenISO] OpenISO.org Core Guidelines

[Norbert Bollow]

Thomas Bader <thomasb at trash.net> wrote:

> * Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> [070910 17:37]:
> I think it would also make sense to require that all those
> mailing list archives are freely browseable and searchable
> through the web.

Agreed.

> > 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?

Agreed.

I'd suggest to use "should" / "should not" for procedural
requirements which, if not satisfied, will result in the concerned
action or specification being considered noncompliant with
OpenISO.org requirements.

I'd further suggest to use "must" / "must not" for requirements
which, if not satisfied, will result in the concerned action or
specification being considered noncompliant with OpenISO.org's
interpretation of international law and/or other widely-recognized
principles of law.

My suggestion for "can" vs "may" is as follows: Use "can" / "cannot"
to describe ability or possibility independently of whether the
concerned possibility is required, allowed or forbidden; use "may"
to described something which is allowed but not required.

> 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?

While I'm personally a big fan of copyleft licenses, and in other
contexts I've been working hard to help give in particular GPL
licensed software a competitive edge over proprietary software,
I think that it would be an abuse of standardization to try to
use OpenISO.org to push software licensed under the GPL or other
strong copyleft licenses.

How about the following?

  Maturity requirements include that a complete non-copyleft or
  weak-copyleft free software implementation should exist, and
  that the spec has been reviewed for cross-cultural applicability
  and with regard to its impact on people with disabilities.

(In addition to the "Core Guidelines" doc, I want us to create a
"Maturity Requirements" doc, which will specify in detail when
OpenISO.org will consider a program to be a "complete
implementation" of a spec, and when OpenISO.org will consider a
program to be "non-copyleft or weak-copyleft free software".)

> > ### 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?

What would you propose?

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG    http://SIUG.ch
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization  http://OpenISO.org