With the evolution of IFC towards more continuous integration, one might wonder how ISO publication will have to evolve. When an ISO standard is ready for publication, there is a specific roadmap to follow, with a series of enquiries and possible comments. With the liaison between ISO/TC 59/SC 13 (where the ISO is published) and CEN/TC 442 (where the EN ISO version is adopted via Vienna Agreement) a published ISO version of IFC becomes a European standard as well and, automatically, a national standard throughout most EU countries.
This can be a good thing (trustworthiness) but also a dangerous thing (defining the content of a standard from outside the actual standardisation activity).
I understand this, as this is where the experts are to develop this work. However, when the time is right to go to publication, the typical interaction of national mirror committees and working groups providing feedback is mostly skipped. At the time the standard is ready for ISO, there is no room anymore for any serious comments, not on editorial level and certainly not on technical level. Rejecting the standard at that time would also be a huge waste of efforts. Accepting it automatically practically circumvents most of the standardisation workflow.
There is no clear solution but to try to make IFC as good as it can be. So I strongly urge all people involved to maximise the communication across these liaisons and ensure that all committees involved are addressed as early as possible, to avoid conflicts later on.
You have to remember that the time for standards publication is long… and the time to get to a review of such as standard is even longer (about 5 years). This is completely the opposite of an approach of continuous integration.
However, I also see an opportunity with a more lean and focused new generation of e.g. IFC5 (or later?) to have a more stable kernel and resources layer and having the actual content-related aspects, such as propertysets more independent (and maybe even outside of the standard?).