[lsb-discuss] What else would we ask of the ISO process; was: Next steps for ISO and the LSB.
R P Herrold
herrold at owlriver.com
Wed Jul 25 19:28:12 UTC 2012
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> (a) Document the minimal process that the LSB
> needs to follow in order to continue publishing
> a Publically Available Specification (PAS) with
> the ISO.
> What else might we do?
Some questions ...
1. There is 'ongoing maintenance' to be performed one ISO
adoption occurs, as I understand it, to keep the adoption
'alive' [As I understand it, the prior adoption from six years
ago was about the be expired, or revoked - nomenclature
unclear] ... How or what steps could this Working Group have
had or taken, so receive advance notice of this before the
'drop dead' date that seemingly exists this Friday?
2. There is much talk about the value of having an ISO seal of
approval, but in all honesty, in the last six years, we have
never had contact from anyone citing that as the reason for
contact. The benefit to be received, in exchange for this
work (which would be done rather than working on previously
chosen LSB goals and priorities) is unclear, and I'd
appreciate more than 'arm waving' about that the value of an
ISO seal of approval is, in a form sufficient to permit an
objective measurement in a year or so, of the expected, vs the
realized benefits from pursuing such a process. How shall we
measure the benefits to be obtained?
3. The ISO adopted OpenOffice v commercial .doc/.docx file
format benefit that was asserted in the call, is not clear in
the US market. If a file format for, say, a resume, is
sought, it will be requested in .doc, .pdf, or flat text. If
a contract is being circulated for 'red-line' markup between
lawyers or corporations, it will be in wordperfect, or .doc
format, if the markup history is to be useably preserved, in
my experience. Is there any objective metric as to what file
formats are being circulated between parties not all under a
single IT regime's control that show a reason to think that
the ISO form has measurable benefit elsewhere?
4. It is silly to think that an ISO imprimatur will cause
desktop adoption of Linux to the exclusion of commercial
efforts. The server room's adoption of Linux clearly was not
driven by the LSB's efforts, nor that of ISO. The 'action' is
in small devices -- smart phones, tablets, and prevasive
embedded devices serving limited functions -- and the LSB is
no-where near ready to document for submission standards to
ISO in that space. How is ISO in this space, and should LSB
be there? [this is the tail end of the unofficial minutes
Hard questions, but, ... asked with real interest, because I
do not know the answers
-- Russ herrold
More information about the lsb-discuss