From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Mon May 4 20:33:17 2026 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom9 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom9@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 2CAA5356DE1; Mon, 4 May 2026 20:33:17 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail-yw1-f170.google.com (mail-yw1-f170.google.com [209.85.128.170]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98848356D7E for ; Mon, 4 May 2026 20:33:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-yw1-f170.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-799001d73bdso40489047b3.0 for ; Mon, 04 May 2026 11:33:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stevelionel.com; s=google; t=1777919595; x=1778524395; darn=open-std.org; h=in-reply-to:to:from:references:content-language:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=0m6r18cho1yqjYL/X9+aPduoWbAU7hk1m+9XNnfzyNI=; b=qA6cXPHCvIKCwE4CVWcr/0XswBbkvqtmNal+08LbIye2ZzQ5YoYDajbhP8oxFHY7EZ GA8fDRH/Uf4wmxZwc9R4J4FlzbQmjD0NjYFv6ZybAID2SNu5R574EKtVjPPHR4VOrxk0 sznk74lk2psVhUAH2Efa0orYqrxajWSjBKJYg= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1777919595; x=1778524395; h=in-reply-to:to:from:references:content-language:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=0m6r18cho1yqjYL/X9+aPduoWbAU7hk1m+9XNnfzyNI=; b=OJaQd3TWGfdLQfK3cFR2fqZgO3KcNg3d803LZevSe6C3yhc3ytZFRWSMdOH3rDPdSm tfqSMo6TwdLDe0X4X6/+khrOKJtHpyY2kcY1G5rp8OG59WeaEMXXQnjzDoRZZl9Ml6oH 66HHXp7d6lCuL0bDHQtFR/VsKcRkqH3+rFj1PIV29NsekgjMznp12K7x+D7w/llFjhuW RssIH+XpthF/m9mdlJ/sLBzGPeV9FqpNOvZuxW05SS9THzR/1FOgX6BOceYVhUXjdR0j 5oqXrAEaH5HxhR+oVuXFldPXM4KwHYBPgcClWTe8DmH8wdg3iJ4kubMldTc9ZJaoHV9/ a96A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyksv9Yz9NZx7LNqTUqincvn//6/DDZNNMgfcMT7qKeHpI32vjp Ov8Tnn3e2OtG+vDioIVJJk5O536bKo0Zbf3ZDZBljkzeFbFgQQkfeWN628naBVhgdTwHyseQacg 6Vmf6 X-Gm-Gg: AeBDieskSmPaF8A9F3qBfChewW7HaCo/7tJoaIEQPwND8lvc1j4tXDYbQ1PAEYovcd2 4ddOZqPlPnaiAXiydoH4yv4WzyA9BCyerOWB/Fx5+Cl/edxErXLALcbnx5RHcekxhEuZqNfwpMy y7fsdj0Gy3WlHJu5bnSsk1MDqiSxzwYgy9IT5h5v3mcbBWCcZTPVPUXQXvr+X8Sury4YS05PrTn lxzOeUsURPeJTyeshJ4LFCroKtTY2dyGgg6N6fadbpxPypePEHqs/cedXQWmD8zgT/wFKZ0Kf0f W+1thTOKmi46rRfXMMr97VZ/qWNyGpbjkaMdsD5htgnMFBcLWAiMl/VjViycIJC4GSr9hJv00j9 KiEh9R7Q0cGiJovnxdB1AVJCPSLUIReSi+TEBNxzVsAwbXK/DX2ENL5YCZlJU8oBssRX8N3RCt4 KaUCEbuEVsloEDDzeSiYi29lLAOpJ6sbxAgKuvKXnnv1DZc1MCwXKrZHk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:6ac6:b0:7a1:3088:e528 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7bd76fc265bmr122777617b3.18.1777919594834; Mon, 04 May 2026 11:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.50.238] ([216.212.3.233]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 00721157ae682-7bd6683794dsm53999967b3.27.2026.05.04.11.33.13 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 May 2026 11:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------zr4nq8SxcnrIkiXKAyP0vFVP" Message-ID: <0126f002-93ca-49f7-a56b-a07baa10d0a6@stevelionel.com> Date: Mon, 4 May 2026 14:33:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Betterbird (Windows) Subject: Fwd: [SC 22 Convenors] Document Access Testimonials Needed Content-Language: en-US References: <0fa7a05d-8d9b-4308-ab55-ba7c49836424@dmk.com> From: Steve Lionel To: WG5 List X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett In-Reply-To: <0fa7a05d-8d9b-4308-ab55-ba7c49836424@dmk.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <0fa7a05d-8d9b-4308-ab55-ba7c49836424@dmk.com> Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------zr4nq8SxcnrIkiXKAyP0vFVP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit If you can provide a reason why WG5 documents should become public (and from David's note this would apply only to working drafts and CDs, all other WG documents would be considered private), please send your organization's justification to David (dmk@dmk.com) by June 4. Steve -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [SC 22 Convenors] Document Access Testimonials Needed Date: Mon, 4 May 2026 07:45:35 -0700 From: David Keaton To: CC: Dear SC 22 Convenors, I am attending this week's JTC 1 Plenary via Zoom; it takes place in São Paulo, Brazil. JTC 1 continues to fight for public availability of some of our documents, and wants us to submit additional testimonials to support this. They want these additional testimonials to come from companies and open-source organizations. Please ask members of your WGs if they can submit these kinds of testimonials. The details follow. JTC 1 is only asking for the following documents to remain public: * New Project Proposals * Working Drafts (the interim drafts prior to CD ballot) * Committee Drafts (the drafts submitted for CD ballot) SC 22 lobbied for much more than this, but JTC 1 believed that they could only win the fight in the long run if they narrowed the request to these three categories. JTC 1 submitted a standards-organization-centric justification for retaining document openness. The portion they took from SC 22 is appended at the end of this message. Now they are looking for companies and open-source organizations to explain why openness is important to them. Companies that participate in the standards process already have access to these documents themselves as a result of that participation, so I would imagine that openness would largely affect a company by affecting its customers. Open-source organizations are different. For the most part, their developers are not employees of the open-source organization, so they do not have access to these documents even though their open-source organization participates in standards activities. I would appreciate it if you could send me any testimonials by Thursday, June 4th, so that I can collect them all together and forward them to the JTC 1 chair. Please let me know if you have any questions. By the way, even though the scope of public documents will narrow regardless of whether JTC 1 wins this fight, the JTC 1 chair has assured me that documents made public under the old rules will remain public; only new documents will be affected. David P.S. Below is the justification that JTC 1 has already submitted from SC 22. New testimonials should focus on the impact to companies and open-source organizations, as opposed to standards committees. The below is pretty old at this point, and came from a time before JTC 1 decided to narrow its request to NPs, WDs, and CDs. --- Examples of the utility of Open access from JTC 1 SC 22, Programming languages: SC 22 uses the relative permissiveness of the current SD 23 as a high-bandwidth communication mechanism with its stakeholders to achieve a higher quality product. For example, the Fortran working group recently held a successful solicitation of comments from their community, which they were able to do because they opened up all types of documents that were allowed to be open, and outside experts were able to gain a clear picture of the direction that development was headed, commenting on what they liked, what they did not like, and what issues were not being addressed but should be. Likewise, the C and C++ working groups have a constant flow of productive feedback resulting from opening up their documents as much as allowed. Some of the feedback comes from people who can eventually be persuaded to join the working groups. Other feedback comes from one-time contributions that are nevertheless highly useful. The Programming Language Vulnerabilities working group is tasked with documenting an enormous breadth of knowledge in at least ten different languages, some of which are outside of ISO/IEC, using a small group of people. They depend even more on high-bandwidth outside collaboration to achieve a quality result, which requires sharing open-access documents as much as allowed. In the programming language community, an ISO/IEC standard already carries the stigma of a closed process that is out of touch with the openness that stakeholders demand today. This inhibits new languages from joining. If the relative permissiveness of STANDING DOCUMENT 23 is lost, even the established areas of SC 22 will no longer be able to produce high quality standards that serve the community. --------------zr4nq8SxcnrIkiXKAyP0vFVP Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

If you can provide a reason why WG5 documents should become public (and from David's note this would apply only to working drafts and CDs, all other WG documents would be considered private), please send your organization's justification to David (dmk@dmk.com) by June 4.

Steve



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [SC 22 Convenors] Document Access Testimonials Needed
Date: Mon, 4 May 2026 07:45:35 -0700
From: David Keaton <dmk@dmk.com>
To:
CC:


Dear SC 22 Convenors,

I am attending this week's JTC 1 Plenary via Zoom; it takes place in São Paulo, Brazil. JTC 1 continues to fight for public availability of some of our documents, and wants us to submit additional testimonials to support this. They want these additional testimonials to come from companies and open-source organizations. Please ask members of your WGs if they can submit these kinds of testimonials. The details follow.

JTC 1 is only asking for the following documents to remain public:

* New Project Proposals

* Working Drafts (the interim drafts prior to CD ballot)

* Committee Drafts (the drafts submitted for CD ballot)

SC 22 lobbied for much more than this, but JTC 1 believed that they could only win the fight in the long run if they narrowed the request to these three categories.

JTC 1 submitted a standards-organization-centric justification for retaining document openness. The portion they took from SC 22 is appended at the end of this message. Now they are looking for companies and open-source organizations to explain why openness is important to them. Companies that participate in the standards process already have access to these documents themselves as a result of that participation, so I would imagine that openness would largely affect a company by affecting its customers.

Open-source organizations are different. For the most part, their developers are not employees of the open-source organization, so they do not have access to these documents even though their open-source organization participates in standards activities.

I would appreciate it if you could send me any testimonials by Thursday, June 4th, so that I can collect them all together and forward them to the JTC 1 chair. Please let me know if you have any questions.

By the way, even though the scope of public documents will narrow regardless of whether JTC 1 wins this fight, the JTC 1 chair has assured me that documents made public under the old rules will remain public; only new documents will be affected.

David

P.S. Below is the justification that JTC 1 has already submitted from SC 22. New testimonials should focus on the impact to companies and open-source organizations, as opposed to standards committees. The below is pretty old at this point, and came from a time before JTC 1 decided to narrow its request to NPs, WDs, and CDs.

---

Examples of the utility of Open access from JTC 1 SC 22, Programming languages:

SC 22 uses the relative permissiveness of the current SD 23 as a high-bandwidth communication mechanism with its stakeholders to achieve a higher quality product. For example, the Fortran working group recently held a successful solicitation of comments from their community, which they were able to do because they opened up all types of documents that were allowed to be open, and outside experts were able to gain a clear picture of the direction that development was headed, commenting on what they liked, what they did not like, and what issues were not being addressed but should be.

Likewise, the C and C++ working groups have a constant flow of productive feedback resulting from opening up their documents as much as allowed. Some of the feedback comes from people who can eventually be persuaded to join the working groups. Other feedback comes from one-time contributions that are nevertheless highly useful.

The Programming Language Vulnerabilities working group is tasked with documenting an enormous breadth of knowledge in at least ten different languages, some of which are outside of ISO/IEC, using a small group of people. They depend even more on high-bandwidth outside collaboration to achieve a quality result, which requires sharing open-access documents as much as allowed.

In the programming language community, an ISO/IEC standard already carries the stigma of a closed process that is out of touch with the openness that stakeholders demand today. This inhibits new languages from joining. If the relative permissiveness of STANDING DOCUMENT 23 is lost, even the established areas of SC 22 will no longer be able to produce high quality standards that serve the community.

--------------zr4nq8SxcnrIkiXKAyP0vFVP--