Participating in a technical standards body — an underused type of judging evidence

Didn't initially think to include my participation in an industry technical standards working group as evidence, until a friend in this community pointed out it's a genuine form of judging/evaluative work that a lot of people in technical fields overlook. Standards body participation often involves reviewing, debating, and voting on technical proposals from others in the field — which is a real form of evaluating the work of others, even though it doesn't look like traditional peer review or competition judging. If you're in a technical field and have participated in this kind of body, it's worth considering whether it fits under the judging criterion, documented the same way any judging role would need to be (appointment evidence, evidence of actual participation, the body's own standing in the field). The broader lesson I took from this: judging and evaluative work can take forms that don't immediately look like the classic "journal peer reviewer" example, and it's worth deliberately thinking through your actual professional activities rather than only looking for the most obvious, textbook examples of each criterion.