>Various stakeholders actually participate in standardization efforts and thus also both already know the standard and are able to push it through. And this is

>Various stakeholders actually participate in standardization efforts and thus also both already know the standard and are able to push it through. And this is exactly the perverse conflict of interest. In those cases, the authors have no interest in actually attracting independent implementations that adopt the specification. The specification is a formality to bolster the credibility of their product or technology. The authors don't want some outside team to read this and actually build something on their own; they want that team to buy their [chip/component/patent license/product/service] that implements this. It's not a solo endeavor. The coauthors and stakeholders tend to be complicit in this game, often as peers in the oligopoly. When a spec author actually wants their specification to be independently implemented, you can tell. They don't make it exclusively for purchase in the dusty basement of the bureaucracy superstore. They put out guides, conformance tests, reference implementations, examples, and tooling. And those materials often do exist for ISO standards... but as expensive, proprietary kits from one of the spec authors, only available to customers who buy their [chip/component/patent license/product/service]. That's part of the business plan. Why write a clear spec and give it away for free when you could be selling one of the only conformant implementations of your Public Standard™?