jon,
Its been interesting and fun. And when challenged (and stirred to respond) Al always has something valuable and worthy to teach us, though of course I don't always agree, and I suppose annoy the crap out of sometimes.
As for internatioanalization it is of course inevitable, in time. And not a bad thing. However, there is a formidable consensus that it is just an homogenization of standards and other than that of no value. Many brilliant people have spent many years developing systems that, though not flawless, are quite excellent. I know at a recent Section I meeting a comment, from one of the most highly respected gentlemen in attendance was to the effect that our system as it is is not broken why do we feel the need to fix it. And what justification do we have to suppose the other one is better.
And I'll say this as well, having done a cursory review of the ISO/BS/DS/EN etc. system of standards when researching the idea of developing such a system and involving my company in PED it did not take long to realize that there is an extreme perpetuation of standards going on. This is not inconsistent, in my view, with the political climate that is predominant in Europe, though I do not wish to open that can of worms. I also find it interesting that at the same time we are debating the possibility of 'internationalizing' the system of which we argue to internationalize to has an extreme intent of protectionism designed to inhibit that very thing. Again, consistent with current EU politics.
I can tell you as well that I see little evidence that internationalization is taking place on the ASME floor (my previous comments regarding Section IX notwithstanding-though as stated the result went the way of Section IX not ISO) in any profound manner at this time(though I believe there is a task group). My experience is that it is still an undertow. I would always defer to Walt's wisdom considering he would be far far more in touch with immanent discussion than I, and is certainly far more involved in ISO, but perhaps that only makes my point better that it has not seen the light of day to us peons as yet, and when it does it experiences severe opposition.
The other thing is that ASME is undergoing extreme change in other areas, (the two year cycle-elimination of multiple stamps-the complete rewrite of NCA-and many others) so it has enough on its hands right now. I do not believe there is the available resources for this to take place too fast. For cripe sake we've been arguing over the hardness requirements for Grade 91 for two years and the most recent vote deferred again.
PS; if memory serves, and of course I'm old, in the recent issue regarding internationalization of a requirement in Section IX to bring it into greater consistency with ISO Walt actually voted to support the Section IX viewpoint, as did a unanimity of committee members.