[continued from previous message]
9.9 On Type A proposals from Subcommittees and other matters relating to technical specifications, such as establishing, modifying, extending, or in any way changing them, an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the votes cast is required.
Item 10 Publications and Publication Policy
10.1 The MDC and its Subcommittees are responsible for developing their own publications, both in regard to timing and content. However, publishing policy and approval procedures shall be established by the Chairman of the MDC.
10.2 Publications in the name of the MDC must be approved by the Chairman prior to circulation to individuals outside of the MDC.
10.3 Papers published by members of the MDC and its subcommittees must contain a disclaimer if the author should disclose in the article in any way his association with an element of the MDC.
10.4 Individual members' articles not falling under either of the above categories are not in any way included under these policies.
10.5 All MDC publications must be identified as such and shall remain in the public domain.
10.6 Within the general policy stated in Item 10.1 above, the MDC may release papers, comments, and other items pertinent to its efforts, with the majority approval of the membership. Until approved by the Chairman, any technical matter must be
identified as to its source and purpose.
10.7 MDC Publications
10.7.1 A release by authority of the Subcommittee of information representing approved language specifications (a Subcommittee Type A release) must:
a. be approved by the Subcommittee and by the MDC,
b. be introduced by a standard introduction,
c. include within the introduction a statement which replicators of the release are requested to use in their replications, and
d. clearly indicate the dynamic nature of the specifications and advise the reader that complete publications will appear periodically when approved by the MDC.
10.7.2 All other information not representing approved language specifications (a Subcommittee Type B release) may be released so long as:
a. the document is approved for release by a majority of the releasing body, which shall be one or more persons officially recognized by the Chairman of the Subcommittee,
b. the chairman of the releasing body has added the proper disclaimers and determined the individual name(s) over which the document is to be released,
c. each page is properly identified when required to reflect the nature of the content, and
d. the Chairman of the Subcommittee has approved the release. Said Chairman may defer release only by placing the item on the agenda of the next meeting of the Subcommittee. This deferring action must be taken either within 30 days from the date of the
request or prior to the next meeting, whichever occurs first.
Item 11 Records and Minutes
11.1 Minutes should be published promptly following a meeting. Corrections to minutes will appear in the minutes of the meeting at which they are corrected.
11.2 The Secretary will maintain the following records:
a. minutes of MDC meetings,
b. a membership list of the MDC,
c. a mailing list of the MDC and other relevant addresses,
d. a roll call list of votes by date and subject,
e. the current agenda,
f. the official MDC Constitution,
g. approved proposals,
h. current proposals,
i. the register of current documents
j. the official MUMPS Specification, and
k. such other records as the Chairman and/or Secretary may determine necessary.
Below is the comment I made on Hardhats:
While I am not a lawyer, this is my understanding of the status of intellectual property relating to M standards.
- The ANSI standard was not renewed, and is abandoned. However, the ISO standard (ISO/IEC 11756:1999), whose language is the ANSI standard, is still in effect and the copyright is owned by ISO/IEC.
- Since the MUMPS Development Committee disbanded with no successor organization that I know of, any material with its explicit or implicit copyright, including any draft standards, commentary and software, is in the public domain. While printed and
electronic copies of those documents are under the control of whoever they are under the control of, there is no IP ownership of the contents.
In May 2020, I was invited to join the revival of an M standard. I joined, under the condition that the standard development move to an open process with community participation, rather than in a closed group. In an attempt to show how such a standard
could be developed in an open public process (much as YottaDB software and documentation are developed), where an evolving standard document is modified based on Issues and Merge Requests, I created a GitLab project (
https://gitlab.com/MStandard/proposal/
-/issues), with the first milestone being a recreation of the 1995 standard (i.e., technically equivalent, but in our own words and based on the public domain documents in order to not infringe the ISO/IEC Copyright). In the fall of 2020, when no steps
had been taken to move to an open process, and I saw no evidence of any actual intent to move, I stepped away from the effort.
My personal opinion is that any attempt to develop and evolve a new M standard without active public participation from a very early stage is doomed to irrelevance. I would not be sorry to be proved wrong.
Regards
– Bhaskar
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)