Is that the case? Isn’t it just that it starts out as something somebody does and eventually it becomes a quasi standard, because more and more people recognize it and then people start defining it as a standard?
Basically to me it seems more like those standards just grow organically and sometimes they may appear as if they were “properly established” before they were used, but from my personal observation it seems, that it is often the other way around.
Some groups may be more rigorous in defining ways of doing things, before just going ahead and doing it in some way. But to me it seems there are probably more, that just go ahead and do it the way they want to, which is fine by me.
The way I see it, standards are there to document established common practice, to make it easier to find these ways of doing things and also increase compatibility by people being aware of it.
But if you don’t have that established common practice first, then you are just inventing standards that nobody may end up using. By using things that aren’t standardized you basically vote for them to become a common practice and eventually if somebody cares enough about it, they will turn it into a standard.
Trying to define the standard first, feels like wanting to script reality: “you all will do this and we will make it common practice, obey my standard!”.
From that side it has a tyrannical vibe to it.
People will end up doing what they like, you can create a standard, but it only matters if it helps people and supports them in doing what they want to do, if it doesn’t, it will just be ignored.
I prefer the easy going vibe of: “lets see what happens and then just document what seemed helpful and sensible”.
That way nobody has to come up with some great standard waterfall style (needing to predict the future, being blamed if it is a bad standard), before people even got a chance to see how it works out in practice, instead people are just free to experiment and the things that seem to work can just be formalized then.