If won't respond or consider those kinds of questions, your point of view is suspect at best, and you open yourself to being controlled by people without legitimate authority. Which is interesting, because often the people who complain most lustily about government waste are willing to let this sort of commercial power grab slide.
There's no point in joining the ISO Working Group when the process is set up to suppress opposition and dissent. What we're trying to establish here is that the ISO's whole process is illegitimate, and that we do not recognize the authority of the ISO. Remember: the issue here is not only advertising or marketing for stupid certifications to a stupid standard. A more important issue here is waste of both public and private funds by manipulating the levers of regulation.
I'm willing to answer the objections you've raised; you're free to ignore my points.
From my FAQ:
Q. If ISO 29119 is so terrible, won’t it disappear under its own weight?
Yes, it probably will in most places. But for a while, some organizations (including public ones; your tax dollars at work, remember) will dally with it at great cost—including the easily foreseeable costs of unnecessary compliance, goal displacement, misrepresentation of testing, and yet another round of marketing of bogus certifications, whereby rent-seekers obtain an opportunity to pick the pockets of the naïve and the cynical.
Q. Do you really believe that ISO 29119 can be stopped?
No, of course we don’t. Curtis Stuehrenberg puts it perfectly in a discussion on LinkedIn: “The petition is not about stopping the publication any more than an anti-war march is about a reasonable expectation of ending a war through a parade. The point of the petition and the general chatter is to make sure at least some people hear there is a significant portion of the testing community who was not represented and who espouse different viewpoints and practices for software testing as a professional discipline.” If we can’t get the standard stopped by the ISO’s mechanisms, at least we can show that there is an absence of consensus outside of the 29119 working groups.
Q. Why didn’t you object using the formal process set up by ISO?
As James Bach points out, the real question there has been begged: why should the craft have to defend itself against a standards process that is set up to favour the determined and the well-funded? ISO is a commercial organization; not an organ of the United Nations, emanating from elected representative governments; not an academic institution; not a representative group of practitioners; not ordained by any deity. The burden is on ISO to show the relevance of the standard, even under its own terms. Simon Morley deconstructs that (http://testers-headache.blogspot.ca/2014/08/iso-29119-questions-part-1.html).
And from my earlier blog post on the subject:
If you want to be on the international working group, it’s a commitment to six days of non-revenue work, somewhere in the world, twice a year. The ISO/IEC does not pay for travel expenses. Where have international working group meetings been held? According to the http://softwaretestingstandard...
Web site, meetings seem to have been held in Seoul, South Korea (2008); Hyderabad, India (2009); Niigata, Japan (2010); Mumbai, India (2011); Seoul, South Korea (2012); Wellington New Zealand (2013). Ask yourself these questions:
How many independent testers or testing consultants from Europe or North America have that kind of travel budget?
What kinds of consultants might be more likely to obtain funding for this kind of travel?
Who benefits from the creation of a standard whose opacity demands a consultant to interpret or to certify?
Meanwhile, if you join one of the local working groups, there are two ways that the group arrives at consensus. 1) By reaching broad agreement on the content. (Consensus, by the way, does not mean unanimity—that everyone agrees with the the content. It would be closer to say that in a consensus-based decision-making process, everyone agrees that they can live with the content.) But, if you can’t get to that, there’s another strategy. 2) By attrition. If your interest is in promulgating an unwieldy and opaque standard, there will probably be objectors. When there are, wait them out until they get frustrated enough to leave the decision-making process. Alan Richardson describes his experience with ISEB in this way.
In light of that, ask yourself these questions:
How many independent consultants have the time and energy to attend local working groups, often during otherwise billable hours?
What kinds of consultants might be more likely to support attendance at local working groups?
Who benefits from the creation of a standard that needs a consultant to interpret or to certify?