I guess there’s “what do you mean by ‘C4L'” and “what do you mean by ‘standards’” that need to be clarified here.

Cary is right, this list/community/whatever is definitely well represented by people who sit on formal standards committees or are involved in the organizations that create them, etc.

But I think more important is the “what do you mean by ‘standards’” question: C4L has definitely spawned several specifications (COinS, UnAPI, etc.) and (in my mind) has been under-utilized in this arena for a few years.  You’ve got a gathering of smart, like-minded people: if you want to create a spec, solicit your idea, start a mailing list, follow the ROGUE ’05 rules [1], and let a thousand specifications bloom.

We’re generally in need of a spec, not a standard, I’ve found (although they’re definitely not mutually exclusive!).

-Ross.
1. http://wiki.code4lib.org/Rogue

On Oct 7, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Salazar, Christina <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> OH NO! (shudder) I’m pretty sure no one is suggesting a "formalized c4l" AGAIN - we've been there done that, relatively recently too.
> 
> I think what we're talking about is a way to represent c4l interests in standards making bodies.
> 
> And just for my own edification, if you're saying c4l IS represented in standards making bodies, please tell me who do I talk to? For instance on the RFID thing, who can I talk to in order to find out HOW and IF this conversation is happening with American standards making bodies?
> 
> Or do you mean INDIVIDUALS who participate in c4l are represented in standards making bodies?
> 
> Christina
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francis Kayiwa
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 11:07 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Forwarding blog post: Apple, Android and NFC – how should libraries prepare? (RFID stuffs)
> 
> On 10/07/2014 02:03 PM, Cary Gordon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>  NISO (and LITA, ASIS&T,
>> etc.) are quite well represented on this list, and I don't believe 
>> that a formalized c4l would give us any more say in standards that we have already.
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> ./fxk
> 
> 
> --
> You single-handedly fought your way into this hopeless mess.