{"p":"","h":{"iv":"ROXSYW+cfvEbFHu5","at":"ocxplSQjdRC3tXEtB/9/wg=="}}

@humanetech @aral @jande @NGIZero @EC_NGI

Trying hard to wrap my head around this one:

"If an SDO’s OSS project becomes fundamental to the way standards are implemented in the marketplace, the lack of participation from these innovators may (i) deprive the community of valuable contributions, and (ii) skew the resulting SDO-approved OSS implementation in a way that is no longer vendor neutral."

I wonder what counts as participation and contribution in the mind of the writer. Only €€€ ?

1
Share
Share on Mastodon
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin
smallcircles (Humane Tech Now)

@keith @aral @jande @NGIZero @EC_NGI @webmink

Indeed. This seems just like crazy to me. Total opposite of that seems to be the positive influence of basing the SDO's effort around an OSS core. Have transparency be at the heart of the standardization effort, and level playing field for anyone to contribute to that discussing in all openness.

These papers are sort of eye-opener for me, as for the kind of "substrate formation" that is needed for a healthy Fediverse.

0
2y
Replies