I have always liked O Reilly publications for their pragmatic approach to technical issues. Hence, its great to see a brief yet insightful article posted on the O Reilly tech community called “Toward a Saner Standards Process” – see here.

The article highlights many of the shortcomings in the standardization process that we, here at talkstandards, have discussed.

Specifically, the acknowledgement of the relationship between setting standards and the creation of technology: i.e., that standards are not created in vacuum and are only useful to the extent that products and technologies based on the standards are deployed. The article then goes on to bravely propose a solution to the problem:

My proposal combines the necessary role of software developers with a standardization process run by the direct consumers of that software, not its creators. That means two phases of development:

• Invention – A very loosely-directed phase which opens with a call for proposals, possibly a meeting that generates a loose description of the work to be done. Developers can band together and form alliances to build work that answers to that description. Hopefully, multiple groups will take up the challenge, producing alternatives for exploration.

• Selection – A formal group of customers – customers who don’t work for the implementers and inventors – evaluates the results of the development phase to figure out what pieces work most easily. They may be able to standardize in a single round, or they may have to select some parts while leaving others open for further development and later standardization.

My view: I believe that the solution proposed – Invention and selection – may not be perfect (the article does acknowledges its limitations), but it would be a pragmatic step forward. More importantly, it would be more likely to provide real results by involving customers formally at an early stage

But in any case, the underlying implication of the article is that the standards process is broken (insane!) and many of us would agree in that view, and concludes that reform is needed for the standards process.