| Should small ISVs be involved with the standards process? |
- The standard in question has just had it's first version accepted by ISO
- There are clear problems with that first version
- I have a lot of expertise in the subject area (not to beat my own drum or anything, but I really do)
- The standard has a lot of potential, if pushed in the right direction
- The meeting is to discuss the future development of the standard, so this is the right time to do that pushing
This week I asked my employer to fund a trip to a standards meeting. The meeting is in the US, so it's a little expensive to attend, but it's an important meeting. The meeting is important because:
Update: I forgot to mention that the standard is also directly related to what we do.
The proposal was met with sarcasm in the office. This raises an interesting question that I've been pondering overnight. I've been working on the assumption that small software companies should be part of the standards process, both because standards compliance is important, and because being an early implementor of these standards can make a big difference to the acceptance of your software.
Then again, perhaps I've been wrong all this time. Should standards development be left to the customers, Microsoft, Adobe and so forth? Should a standard be about what the customer and large vendors want, not what is possible?
I suspect that large vendors certainly use the standards process to produce standards they know are hard for their competitors to implement -- the ODMA specification is certainly an example of one specification written by a large vendor, which is fairly closely tailored to how their code internally works, and is therefore harder for everyone else to implement.
So, are standards about the customer? Should they be used as a competitive tool? Whatcha think?
posted at: 16:58 | path: /work | permanent link to this entry
-
#1
Scott Flowers
I strongly believe that smaller software makers should be involved in standards-making. I know that there may be insurmountable cost issues for them which could make this impossible, but my philosophy allows only two choices regarding participation in standards:
My position is that open standards should always be followed, when they are available, for whatever you do. The only exception to this is a company trying to set up a monopoly. If you are one of those, you are exempt from this philosophy. You are also exempt from me wanting to work with you.
The two choices I mentioned are the logical conclusion of this.
First, you participate in the standards-making process, increasing the chances that the standard for your particular effort meets your needs, or second, you live with the standard that got created in your absence, as in the case you mention with ODMA.
-
#2
Michael Still
Scott,
you're right, and I'll address your points in a post...
Cheers,
Mikal