To add to that: if the intent is truly a community-led standard, I’m of the opinion that one should not announce the standard and then seek feedback about the standard. You propose a draft, open a period of discussion from stakeholders, then finalize it. COPC is an example of how this was done quite well.
It’s not too late, but at a minimum Pix3D should mark the spec as a draft and have a window period available for discussing/changing the draft based on stakeholders feedback (aside from the other points highlighted by @smathermather).
Otherwise just call it the “Pix4D Photogrammetry Format”, it will still be useful for others in the field.