[lsb-discuss] Thoughts on LSB ISO standard
vrub77 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 31 05:47:33 UTC 2012
Well, as a Secretary of the Russian SC22 mirror committee I represented
Russian Federation at the SC22 plenary meeting in Ottawa in Sept 2010.
One of the resolutions taken there (see R10-24 in N4572) was to confirm
the ISO/IEC 23360:2006 standard at the end of its 5-year review period.
Personally I voted yes and there were no objections actually. So dealing
with ISO might be not that difficult. But I think the main question is
if we have a critical mass of LSB stakeholders interested in developing
the standard. The current answer is more NO than YES as far as I know.
Vladimir Rubanov, Ph.D., PMP
VP Engineering and Deputy CEO
ROSA Software Development Center
31 Июль 2012 г. 6:21:58, Theodore Ts'o писал:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 07:19:51PM -0600, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Robert Schweikert
>> <rjschwei at suse.com> wrote:
>>>> OTOH, the situation is different now. We do have an ISO standard, and
>>>> from the point of view of SC22 we do have to maintain that standard.
>>> Why do we have to maintain it?
>>> Why can we not just get rid of it or let it lapse and be done with this?
>> In the sense that this is what you agree when you submit a standard to
>> ISO, and thus what we promised: maintenance is an obligation. However,
>> one possible outcome of that is to simply say you're going to let it drop
>> when the question comes up, which it does on a pre-determined time
> ISO/IEC 23360 was approved at the end of 2006. PAS standards expire
> in 3 years, although they can be extended for another term of 3 years,
> at which point it must be published as another type of normative
> document or be withdrawn. Was affirmative action taken in 2009 to
> actually extend it? I was CTO of the LF in 2009, and as far as I know
> ISO did not take any action to have it be extended in 2009. At the
> time, as I mentioned, I canvassed the LF sponsors, and no one was
> interested in paying the $$$$ needed to get an expert who could do the
> necessary editing work to make the LSB text have the correct format,
> references, etc., etc., to meet the requirements for a full ISO
> My understanding at time, after I had talked to Nick, who is well
> versed in ISO/IEC's policies and procedures, was that the amount of
> work necessary to make sprinkle the appropriate holy penguin pee to
> make it smell like an ISO standard, was non-trivial, and would take a
> significant amount of work, and hence a significant amount of work
> (never mind the necessary travel, meetings, payment of the INCITS
> membership fees so the US National Position would be appropriate ---
> remember, Sun was still around, and presumed to be hostile to Linux,
> so the US National Body position was not guaranteed to be favorable to
> Given that 2009 was right in the middle of the implosion of the
> financial markets, it's not surprising that people weren't willing to
> pay the costs --- but the bigger issue was that no one I talked to
> from the Linux Foundation's corporate sponsors saw any benefits of
> continuing to maintain the status of ISO/IEC 23360. From a business
> case perspective, it simply just didn't hold up.
> As a result, we let the Linux Foundation's PAS submitter status lapse,
> and since I didn't hear anything to the contrary, I thought ISO/IEC
> 23360:2006 had already lapsed and had been withdrawn.
> Given that this is another three years later, did someone in SC22
> extend ISO/IEC 23360 on our behalf without our knowing it? Even if it
> did, it doesn't seem possible to me that the necessary technical and
> editorial work, plus the necessary organizational work, could be done
> before the end of the year. So it would seem that it's inevitable
> that even if it didn't lapse three years ago, it would certainly lapse
> by the end of the year.
> - Ted
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
More information about the lsb-discuss