Proposed method · version 0.1
Standards development and version control
This page describes the safeguards WIMA would need before a professional standard could be approved, published and applied. The process itself remains proposed and has no normative effect.
Lifecycle
Eight controlled stages
No stage may be inferred from a draft file, working reference or website summary.
Proposal
Record the problem, intended scope, affected groups, evidence, legal context, urgency, resources and conflicts. Acceptance as a work item would not approve a standard.
Scope and participation
Define what is in and out of scope, the intended normative effect, dependencies and success tests. Publish participant roles and material interests before consultation.
Evidence and legal review
Maintain a claim-and-source register. Identify conflicting jurisdictional duties and obtain specialist review for regulated practice, confidentiality, financial crime, sanctions, client assets, data protection and competition where relevant.
Working draft
Use stable clause numbers and keep requirements, rationale, examples and evidence distinct. Define terms and draft conformance evidence so a reader can test what a requirement means.
Public consultation
A future approved process would normally allow at least 30 calendar days, or 60 days for a major code or high-impact standard. Scope, draft, questions, conflicts, closing date and privacy terms would be public.
Disposition and approval
Record each material comment as accepted, accepted in part or not accepted, with a reason. The legally competent body would review the final text, evidence, specialist advice, dissent, quorum and recusals.
Publication and commencement
Freeze accessible HTML and downloadable representations, publish the version, scope, status, approval record, change summary, digest and transition period. Publication alone would not make a document effective.
Maintenance
Review after a scheduled interval or earlier trigger. Record whether the result is confirmation, correction, amendment, revision, supersession or withdrawal; preserve earlier public versions where lawful.
Document integrity
Version and status rules
A controlled document would have a stable identifier and an immutable version identifier. Major changes would alter scope, duties, rights, sanctions, eligibility or conformance. Minor changes would add a compatible clarification or bounded procedure. A patch would repair presentation without changing meaning.
Approval, publication, effective, correction, review and withdrawal dates would remain separate. A published document would not be described as current unless its approved effective date had arrived.
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Proposal | Concept or early text; no normative effect. |
| Working draft | Drafting material; no normative effect. |
| Consultation draft | Public input invited; not in force. |
| Approved future | Approved and published but not yet effective. |
| Current | Effective operative version within its stated private-association scope. |
| Under review | Still current unless a separate decision says otherwise. |
| Corrected | A logged correction has been issued. |
| Superseded | Replaced but retained for citation and historical application. |
| Withdrawn | No longer approved for new use; retained with its reason and effect where lawful. |
Fair notice
Enforcement boundary
Only an effective binding document, adopted under valid authority, could support a future WIMA disciplinary allegation. The allegation would need to cite the exact clause and version in force when the conduct occurred. Guidance could explain a clause but could not enlarge it.
A later stricter rule could not be applied retrospectively. A withdrawn or superseded version would remain available for historical cases. WIMA rules would remain private-association rules and would not replace legislation, a court order, regulator requirements or professional secrecy.