A lot has been said already about the knowledge management systems standard (ISO 30401). I've read the draft globally, when it was open to the public, till January 16. And I've read some of the discussion about it in the SKIM leaders community (not everything, because I was sick at that time and most is posted when it's night for us). If you want to know more about the standard, you can look at the webinar recording published here.
Overall, I think it's good that the effort was done. I've often wondered why there was no standard, especially because the KM area is not new any more. Reading too that there is a standard for Innovation management, I think it's about time there is a standard for KM. I also feel that there isn't much new that is published about KM, which to me is another sign we're talking about a mature area. For the same reason, I disagree when some people say that it's not possible to put an area like KM in a standard, as it's (application) is too much dependent on the context. Whether this version is sufficient to be "the" standard, is a question I'm not certain to answer. It provides a very generic, but to me limited framework. Same for the choice of words and definitions, I sometimes wonder why this choice was made. The knowledge life cycle, for example, is debatable. Of course, I realize that this is a knowledge management system standard, and it's not a handbook (although the scope refers to "guidelines for establishing a KM system in organization"). I expect a high-level framework and definitions of the elements to be in place for knowledge management, which each organization will fill in and work out in detail for themselves. I was a bit surprised it to be a mix of high level and at some points details that are worked out (I guess these are the guidelines). It feels like the committee couldn't make a choice.
Many comments and suggestions for change have been submitted and it's now up to the committee to make changes (or not). I believe there will be a voting too, so it's not even certain that this draft will become a final standard. I do understand it will be difficult to have a standard that satisfies everybody, but I hope the comments will improve the current standard to a document that in its base covers the area. And leaves the details to the organizations to fill in.