Learning from the W3C process
I have been disappointed in the quality of the ISO standard for Eiffel. In fact I would be ashamed to point to it in order to show-off Eiffel.
For one, it has far too many typographical errors.
For another, some areas appear to be under-specified. For example, Unicode.
For a third, it appears that the prophecy by the SmartEiffel team, that the standard (as we now have it) will never be implemented, seems likely to come true, in the light of the current discussions about CATCALLs on the Eiffel Software wiki.
I think these failings might be attributable to the process followed. I think we could learn a lot from the W3C process document (as a member of the XSLT working group, I have some experience of this).
In this process, an intended standard goes through various stages. The critical stages are Call for implementations (when a Candidate Recommendation is released), and Call for a review of a Proposed Recommendation. It is normally expected that interoperability of all features of the proposed standard is demonstrated by at least two implementations.
Further, the actual process itself is more open and user-friendly. There are mailing lists where the public can post comments on the various working drafts. In the XML Processing working group even the internal discussions mailing list is readable by the public (but not writeable - there is a separate public comments mailing list).
I know the online PDF of ETL3 was available for the public to browse, but I find it far harder to do this than with the XHTML documents that the W3C publishes, and there was no easy feedback mechanism.