[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 
observations]

Hard questions, but, ... asked with real interest, because I 
do not know the answers

-- Russ herrold



More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list