Just thinking out loud....

Would conversion of the #ActivityPub protocol to become an official #ISO standard be a good move?

Plus sides:
* Adds legitimacy
* The standards review process involving many experts/ countries could potentially enhance the protocol

Down sides:
* Developing a standard is slooowww - may reduce the speed of development
* Gaining international consensus at this level may take much effort

@jschwa1 I would recommend submitting ActivityPub to ISO through their Publicly Available Specificcations process using an organisation such as Eclipse, JDF (*Linux Foundation). OASIS or ECMA to facilitate. This is the route other specs arising from #OpenSource took, such as #ODF and #SWHID.

Do not make the mistake the author of the previously open Schematron #standard made, conducting the work at ISO and then having to pay them to access ongoing updates...

@webmink @jschwa1 Please note that ActivityPub is a W3C Recommendation and should/will not go via OASIS or ECMA. W3C has their own procedure with ISO, provided there is some added value (TRIPS agreement) This is a very burdensome procedure as ISO insists on translating the HTML Specification into Microsoft Word with a very special outline. So as long as there is no important added value, we will not do it. Creating another independent ActivityPub will just create fragmentation.

@rigo
Right. It's hard to include absolutely everything in just one toot!

The ISO PAS process is likely to get easier when they switch fully to OSD.

@jschwa1