[Members] Publishing Non-Open-Standard Specifications
dave at cridland.net
Thu Jan 16 09:30:47 UTC 2020
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 04:34, Travis Burtrum <travis at burtrum.org> wrote:
> What definition of Open Standard are you working from? Wikipedia lists no
> less than 22 .
I've generally gone for the UK Government one (which, by the way, I help
enforce), though that is a definition designed for consumers of standards
rather than producers. I can go along with the FSFE, the EU, the FFII, and
others. Most European governments follow a similar definition, for example
the very concise French one:
By open standard is understood any communication, interconnection or
interchange protocol, and any interoperable data format whose
specifications are public and without any restriction in their access or
This proposal, assuming there would be a way to move from $NEW_TRACK to
> regular Standards track if the situation changed in the future, seems like
> it would solve the problem, allowing the community and individual
> implementers to decide if it's worth implementing without being blocked
> by potentially wrong legal interpretations.
I will take that as an acceptance of the compromise I propose.
Moving between Standards Track and $NEW_TRACK is a good argument for
keeping them as XEPs.
> However, we should at least
> define "Open Standard" and "encumbrance" in XEP-0001 to give council
> guidance on what track to put this on, we should likely define those
> regardless of this decision.
Yes, agreed (though for another thread).
A definition of "Open Standard" would need to apply both to what we produce
and what we consume as dependencies equally.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Members