> * Should we run the standard through a standards body like ANSI,
> ISO, IEEE, etc.? If so, which one? Opinions were divided on
> that, but most seemed to agree that we should get going and
> possibly create a new standards document first, and deal with a
> standards body later (if at all). It was proposed to defer
> answering the question for 1 year (12Y:0N:3A). One argument
> against involving standards bodies is that they want to have an
> exclusive copyright on the document, so that even the developers
> of the standards have lose the right to copy and continue to
> develop it.
>
>
The overhead of dealing with a standards body is *very* high. Having
gone through the formal standards process with both ANS Forth and Open
Firmware, I don't want to do it ever again.

On the other hand, the process can be helpful for (eventually) gaining
consensus when there are many different opinions represented.

After the Open Firmware Working Group finished the IEEE 1275 core
standard and three subordinate "binding" standards, we stopped using the
official IEEE process for followon work. Instead, we just used a
lightweight proposal/discussion/publish on the web site approach. That
worked quite well because the working group was relatively small. It
probably would not have worked so well if several different companies
were trying to codify different preexisting implementations (which was
the case with ANS Forth).

Another thing to consider is the expense. The formal standards process
is surprisingly expensive, because of requirements to get broad
participation, to have regular meetings in diverse places, etc. Full
participation usually ends up requiring company sponsorship to pay for
travel costs, etc.

My overall recommendation is to go the unofficial route.

Best Wishes, and Good Luck,
Mitch Bradley
(past) Vice Chair, ANS Forth Technical Committee
Chair, Open Firmware Working Group