> Imo every contributor, be it maintainer, bug fixer, GSoC student, whoever, > should be able to access the standard > ISO standards, unfortunately, don't work that way. Even with membership in something like the PDF Association, you wouldn't be able to do that. You would have to limit it to a specific group of people that are a member of your organization.
> In the case of PDF association, would we join as individuals, or as "the > poppler devs" (nice, but probably not permitted :) ), or via an org? > That's up to you folks, but I would think that "as an org" would be best...of course, you'd have to have an actual formal "org" of some fashion or it would be individuals. > Just a side node, national standardisation body membership can seemingly be > cheaper than those 750€, see my initial email. > Very true. Though each person would then need to join their own national bodies. And not all national bodies are members of TC171. > How about The Document Foundation? They seem interesting to me, because >- they must have ISO experience in some way (ODF is ISO/IEC 26300-1:2015) > It's not just ISO membership, but specifically involvement in ISO TC171. The Document Foundation is not involved with our TC. Leonard -----Original Message----- From: poppler <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tobias Deiminger Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 12:40 PM To: Albert Astals Cid <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [poppler] PDF 2.0 Spec (answer from FSFE) Am 10.03.2019 13:15 schrieb Albert Astals Cid: > El diumenge, 10 de març de 2019, a les 12:59:15 CET, Germán > Poo-Caamaño va escriure: >> On Sun, 2019-03-10 at 12:15 +0100, Albert Astals Cid wrote: >> I think the right question is: How many (and who are) developers who >> might need access to the draft that Imo every contributor, be it maintainer, bug fixer, GSoC student, whoever, should be able to access the standard. I'd consider individuals funding only a last resort. It might not even make sense to limit access to "at least one commit" people, because the first commit may depend on having the standard available. Arguably, one could resort to PDF 1.7 in that case. >> >> AFAIK, you are (or were) a KDE e.V. member. So, it is not an issue >> for you. For who that would be an issue? > > Yes I am a member of KDE e.V. > > I think what Tobias meant was that only one organization would pay Yes, that's what FSFE suggested, and what I personally find suitable. In the case of PDF association, would we join as individuals, or as "the poppler devs" (nice, but probably not permitted :) ), or via an org? > those 750€ and we'd all join that organization. Just a side node, national standardisation body membership can seemingly be cheaper than those 750€, see my initial email. > But as said I'm not sure that'd work, i.e. I don't personally have a > problem joining the GNOME Foundation, but i am not sure if that'd be > at all possible without some kind of weird exception on how the GNOME > Foundation members are usually chosen/approved/accepted (and the same > way for you and KDE e.V. i think) You're probably right. Otoh, asking is free and nobody will get hurt, do you think we should try? How about The Document Foundation? They seem interesting to me, because - they must have ISO experience in some way (ODF is ISO/IEC 26300-1:2015) - they're neutral in the sense that most poppler devs (I believe) have either GNOME or KDE background, but not TDF (excuse me if that's wrong) - their software includes poppler, just like GNOME and KDE software Cheers Tobias _______________________________________________ poppler mailing list [email protected] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpoppler&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C2ea164a9e01d42a4b54008d6a5770534%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636878327949934549&sdata=G2qrMTmidwKJtthY1f7WVNxQhM51SwWvH2S9jV4AxSI%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ poppler mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler
