As I wrote, we need standards, and those standards to a lot of good in terms of setting best-practices and documenting procedures than can result in repeatable, robust results. Being able to point to standards compliance is also helpful in reducing the effort involved in describing and justifying procedures/designs.
The problem is in the dissemination of the standards. Of course folks can try to implement and promulgate standards themselves, but IME they have a hard time getting traction without the "blessing" of a major organization.
And to be honest, contributing to a standard looks good on a resume.
Nothing in what I said pointed toward closed standards, and I wasn't referring to closed standards. In my field (acoustics/noise & vibration control) we generally don't have closed standards and rely on standards to produce results that we have confidence in.
I was imagining one thing, but apparently it's something else. What you said makes sense in your field (and in others), and of course, it's non-closed standarts
The problem is in the dissemination of the standards. Of course folks can try to implement and promulgate standards themselves, but IME they have a hard time getting traction without the "blessing" of a major organization.
And to be honest, contributing to a standard looks good on a resume.