“Simon, I’m beginning to think that you were right and I was
wrong. You said a standard’s process is a crucial aspect of the
standard’s product, and a process that is not open cannot be
trusted to produce a product that can be considered open. I
maintained that I had seen and used many wonderful standards that
took absolutely zero input from me, and therefore I didn’t see my
participation as a necessary prerequisite for assuring quality in
the future. I believed that no matter what the process, a standard
should be judged by the product. Watching the fallout settle from
the BRM in Geneva, I’m beginning to think that you were right and I
was wrong.“What you got right is that when a process is allowed to go out
of its way to exclude legitimate participation, we must withdraw
from the presumption that the standard can be legitimate, even if
the end product does not overly exclude the possibility of an open
source implementation…”
LinuxToday is a trusted, contributor-driven news resource supporting all types of Linux users. Our thriving international community engages with us through social media and frequent content contributions aimed at solving problems ranging from personal computing to enterprise-level IT operations. LinuxToday serves as a home for a community that struggles to find comparable information elsewhere on the web.
Property of TechnologyAdvice. © 2025 TechnologyAdvice. All Rights Reserved
Advertiser Disclosure: Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which TechnologyAdvice receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. TechnologyAdvice does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.