I have this setup in tomodachi94/awesome-computercraft, it might be nice to have here.

This is my first time coming across this project. In my opinion the concept of having standards for CC like this is comedic on its own, but I was at least hoping I'd see some decent organization and a more impressive arrangement of standards since the last time oeed contributed to them. I was disappointed.
Below is the list of inconsistencies I found in the standards:

CCSMB 1

The header defined by the standard is:

*Author: Your Name <@yourgithub>*
*Version: v1.0.0
*Last updated: YYYY-MM-DD*

The header for CCSMB 1 itself does not follow this standard, opting to add an extra newline and a description, not defined by the standard:

*Author: Tomodachi94 <@tomodachi94>*

*Version: v1.0.0*

*Last updated: 2022-11-07*

This RFC defines the protocol for defining and submitting a standard to the CCSMB.

Later in the file:

The RFC should be written in a professional tone. Readers are expected to have a basic understanding of programming jargon and Lua programming.

bit of a nitpick but I feel like the term "programming jargon" coming right after "professional tone" completely side-steps the goal of the section. It could be written better.

CCSMB 2

• Same issue as CCSMB 1, header newlines.
• Version is not prefixed with a v like CCSMB 1 suggests.
• "Last updated" is now "Last revised", and the date has been left blank/with the template string, even though the version seemingly is not the first (1.0.1)

CCSMB 6

• Same issue as CCSMB 1, header newlines.
• Same issue as CCSMB 1, header description.
• Same issue as CCSMB 2, version prefix.
• Same issue as CCSMB 2, "Last updated" -> "Last revised"

CCSMB 7

• Same issue as CCSMB 1, header newlines.
• Same issue as CCSMB 1, header description.
• Same issue as CCSMB 2, version prefix.
• Same issue as CCSMB 2, "Last updated" -> "Last revised"

CCSMB 10

• Same issue as CCSMB 2, template value for "Last updated".
• Version in header is the default template value instead of providing an actual version number.
• Standard has no fallback behavior for "compliant installers" when any of the setting values do not exist.

Since bimg is a widely used (from my expierence) image format I think it should be written
(Someone else can/will probably beat me to the punch on this)

Some standards may be deprecated over time, (nfp, nft, etc). It would be a good idea to have a field for deprecated standards for RFCs.

What license should this be licensed under?

I think it should be the GFDL, as the predecessor to this was also GDFL.

It would be nice if we could have a Github Pages based static markdown site, so that the RFCs are easier to read.
This should be simple, the hard part is finding a good theme.
We could also PR into SquidDev-CC/madefor.cc so that we can have standards.madefor.cc or something similar

This repository seems to be missing a LICENSE.md file.
Due to importing from oeed/CraftOS-Standards we must use the GNU Free Documentation License.