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
Replying to @jschwa1@mastodonapp.uk
@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...
Replying to @webmink@meshed.cloud
@webmink Two thoughts:
1. The PAS process, whilst easier, would need a body to fund it. The end result would, arguably, have less 'weight' than a full ISO
2. I may be wrong, but I don't believe ISO can charge to use standards, only to purchase the standard. This may mean those developing, say, a standard implementation of the standard, would need to pay to read/ access it. Those wanting to use the resulting implementation would not need to purchase anything from ISO. Knowing it was developed to the ISO standard will add credibility
Replying to @jschwa1@mastodonapp.uk
@jschwa1 Quick answers:
1. Unlike the funky BSI definition, PAS here simply means developing the full spec in a non-ISO venue and then requesting they adopt it. There's no need for significant extra cost, apart from satisfying ISO's extremely burdensome approval requirements. And as @rigo says W3C already has a PAS submission facility.
2. No-one cares where the spec came from if it has an ISO number. Developing at ISO simply means every attempt to access the spec must be paid for. Don't!