Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1

[Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>]

>2.) The ISO PAS submission needs to happen before October.
> a.) there is a lot of value to having ISO certification since it
>     can help Linux get into places it couldn't before like various
>     governments, companies, and industries that require ISO
> b.) it can provide an advantage over non-ISO software. For example: a
>     government might have a general policy to use ISO for something
>     when it exists, but when it doesn't they can choose anything. So
>     having an ISO certified Linux would mean in these cases they
>     couldn't pick Microsoft anymore.
> c.) the PAS process opens a 6 month window for submittal which can be
>     extended for 1 six month period. The PAS was applied for last
>     October (when 2.0 was scheduled to release in January) and then
>     extended, so the window closes this October. No one has ever missed
>     their window before, but at the very least it would be a lot of
>     paperwork to start the process over again.
>
>So these non-technical constraints are increasing the pressure to release. 
>One can argue if they are really worth not waiting for an ideal solution.

This is doubly unfortunate. I do not think that the LSB 2.0rc1 spec
should be adopted as an ISO PAS.

>From my reading of ISO rules, it looks like an ISO PAS requires a TC/SC
to approve a new work proposal that results in a PAS. Can you tell me
which TC/SC agreed to this? 

best,
benjamin