9 ms·

This is an important style but I find this style of journalism infuriating. It's hard to follow because there'll be a bit of information and then a transition i

by cletus 10y ago

This is an important style but I find this style of journalism infuriating. It's hard to follow because there'll be a bit of information and then a transition into some unrelated background before it (hopefully) circles back to the original point. It's almost like writing a college paper and having to pad out the word count. Anyway, I support the straightforward principle that the law isn't the law if it's not accessible to the public. The only question left is how do you fund standards development if you abolish the model (that predates the Internet) of selling copies. I suspect the answer is going to be different on a case by case basis. For example, general contractors and tradesmen depending on jurisdiction need to be licensed. A mix of license fees and government funding could pay for building or fire codes.

Declanomous 10y ago
I really like this style of writing. I find it easier to remember information that is tied to other information. A story written like this makes it much more likely I will have existing knowledge to anchor the knowledge I learn story to.
kevin42 10y ago
"The only question left is how do you fund standards development if you abolish the model (that predates the Internet) of selling copies. I suspect the answer is going to be different on a case by case basis." Why shouldn't congress pay for the development of the law if they are going to enact the law? I've often thought that is part of the problem. It is too easy for congress to pass laws quickly and without restriction. That is why we have so many laws, it is so easy to pass laws in a reactionary way, and to respond to private interests instead of public interests. I do think it's important to have laws like building codes, but why shouldn't the development be publicly funded?
- lithos 10y ago
  Well the people writing them are also receiving a large amount of power when they are working in the law. The people involved have already spent massive sums on lobbying, and to me this feels like an extension of that lobbying.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    You've got the causation backwards. ASTM is an engineering organization like ISO. They develop industry-consensus standards, just like ISO. Their codes didn't get adopted as the standard because they lobbied for them (do you even have any evidence ASTM lobbied to get its standards adopted?). They got adopted because they were the industry standards. It's like if a law stated that certain government contractors must use ADA or C. They'd refer to the ISO standards for those languages, but nobody could reasonably come along after the fact and say they did so because of lobbying by ISO!
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      And yet ASTM maintains a Washington, DC, presence, with public policy (a/k/a lobbying) positions. ASTM Washington Office Jeff Grove, Vice-President, Global Policy and Industry Affairs 202-xxx-xxxx Anthony Quinn, Director, Public Policy and International Trade 202-xxx-xxxx http://www.astm.org/CONTACT/headquar.htm http://www.astm.org/CONTACT/headquar.htm Even if ASTM itself doesn't directly lobby, it's ... delightfully or frighteningly charming, take your pick, that the naive view of an industry organisation not being utilised by its members for their direct benefit through rules-setting wouldn't find itself used to do so. Directly, indirectly, overtly, or otherwise. Congressional Record lists 188 results for ASTM in Congressional testimony and documents: https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B"source"%3A"congrecord"%2C"search"%3A"astm"%7D https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B"source"%3A"congrecord"... Note that ASTM is principally active at city, county, and state levels, for which comparable archives are much less available.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      ASTM are documented to have retained a lobbying firm in the UK: http://whoslobbying.com/uk/astm_international http://whoslobbying.com/uk/astm_international Sep 2010 - Nov 2010 APCO WORLDWIDE provided UK public affairs consultancy services to ASTM International. [2]
- rayiner 10y ago
  > I do think it's important to have laws like building codes, but why shouldn't the development be publicly funded? Because building codes are a local issue and local governments have no money?
  - kevin42 10y ago
    That's a valid point. But why couldn't all of these local governments get together and collectively come up with the standards. If they can't figure a way to come up with the standards without outsourcing it to a for profit organization, it must not be a very important law. Think of how corrupt the system could be if a bunch of building material suppliers could write the law. "Buildings must be constructed from brand X materials" Then brand X has a monopoly for the materials. This is similar, only brand X is the only company that can provide you with a copy of the law, a law that you are required to comply with.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      > That's a valid point. But why couldn't all of these local governments get together and collectively come up with the standards. Because these standards are highly technical and local governments lack the expertise. > If they can't figure a way to come up with the standards without outsourcing it to a for profit organization, it must not be a very important law. These are non-profit organizations. And the part after the comma does not follow from the part before the comma. It's often very important for things to be done according to accept standards, but the government can recognize that without having the expertise to develop the standards itself.
      - kevin42 10y ago
        > Because these standards are highly technical and local governments lack the expertise. Ok, but why can't the government pay them to develop the standards. Why must the business model be for them do fund the development of the standards after the fact. I believe it is because the lawmakers do not have to pay for the laws with unpopular taxes, so they defer the fundraising to pay for the laws until after they have enacted the laws. That way they skirt the issue of taxes. > And the part after the comma does not follow from the part before the comma. I guess it's just my opinion then. If the lawmakers can't stand by and realize the cost of forming the law while they are passing it, I don't think it is important enough to impose a cost to the citizens to read what the law is.
- jpgvm 10y ago
  Congress already funds the development of the standards, these bodies just continue to profit from them until they are superseded, entirely due to these practices. This is very much like public funded research, it's funded by taxpayers but not available to them without movements like SciHub liberating the products of said research. It's a bit of a joke that it's allowed to continue this way for so long in the first place.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    > Congress already funds the development of the standards Source?
    - specialist 10y ago
      Governments delegate rule-making authority, which have the force of law, to these industry organizations. If all laws should be public, these too should be public, regardless of funding model.
    - asmithmd1 10y ago
      https://www.nist.gov/ https://www.nist.gov/
      - rayiner 10y ago
        NIST fully funded development of the building standards at issue?
        warkdarrior 10y ago
        NIST partially funded building standards: https://www.nist.gov/el/about-el/standards-activities https://www.nist.gov/el/about-el/standards-activities
        rayiner 10y ago
        So EL does some research that UL/ASTM/etc. rely on to develop their standards, and therefore those standards should all be free? By that logic, Google's search algorithms should be made public because it almost certainly relies on some publicly-funded CS research.
taserian 10y ago
Another aspect that seems to be glossed over is the "Incorporated By Reference" (IBR). Just as in programming, the fact that I refer to something in a pointer doesn't mean that it remains constant. What prevents the writers of a standard from changing it after a legislative body approves it as IBR? If a standard is determined to be better served by a change (due to safety, correction, or some other metric), does it need to be re-approved by the same legislative body? Or does the legislative body need to be informed of the change, and determine if it needs re-approval?
- mindslight 10y ago
  States generally ratify each revision of the code by updating the law. For example, the NEC is released every three years, and independently adopted by each state: http://www.electricalcodecoalition.org/state-adoptions.aspx http://www.electricalcodecoalition.org/state-adoptions.aspx Each state also makes a handful of their own amendments to the code, to account for local conditions and historic practices. An example of a local allowance (although probably informal city jurisdiction rather than statewide) is say allowing a two-family house to have only two electrical meters, rather than requiring an additional one for the "common areas", if it is owner occupied. I guess technically the NFPA could revise what they publish as the "2014 NEC", creating some legal ambiguity. But in practice they just don't.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    I misremembered. I think the requirement for separate electrical service for each residence IS a MA state amendment. And then town inspector's exception was that if something was owner-occupied, the extra common-area meter socket was still required, but installing it and building out the service panel was not.
smsm42 10y ago
Agree, I hate it when I come to the article for information and it starts with "On Monday, X woke up at 7am and had eggs for breakfast". I don't care what X had for breakfast, I came there to know about the lawsuit he's involved in, so give me the lawsuit and let him east the breakfast in privacy! > The only question left is how do you fund standards development I think there's an existing model of both government contracting private companies to do things and government allocating grants for private companies to do research, etc. - so either of those can be used for developing standards too, not? The government can also have a continuous financing of certain groups that are tasked with ongoing work on creating/updating standards. Also, can be financed by involved industry - many industry players are as interested in having good standards as the government is, and are probably very interested in participating in developing those. Isn't that how IETF works?

by cletus 10y ago

Declanomous 10y ago

I really like this style of writing. I find it easier to remember information that is tied to other information. A story written like this makes it much more likely I will have existing knowledge to anchor the knowledge I learn story to.

kevin42 10y ago

"The only question left is how do you fund standards development if you abolish the model (that predates the Internet) of selling copies. I suspect the answer is going to be different on a case by case basis." Why shouldn't congress pay for the development of the law if they are going to enact the law? I've often thought that is part of the problem. It is too easy for congress to pass laws quickly and without restriction. That is why we have so many laws, it is so easy to pass laws in a reactionary way, and to respond to private interests instead of public interests. I do think it's important to have laws like building codes, but why shouldn't the development be publicly funded?

lithos 10y ago
Well the people writing them are also receiving a large amount of power when they are working in the law. The people involved have already spent massive sums on lobbying, and to me this feels like an extension of that lobbying.
- rayiner 10y ago
  You've got the causation backwards. ASTM is an engineering organization like ISO. They develop industry-consensus standards, just like ISO. Their codes didn't get adopted as the standard because they lobbied for them (do you even have any evidence ASTM lobbied to get its standards adopted?). They got adopted because they were the industry standards. It's like if a law stated that certain government contractors must use ADA or C. They'd refer to the ISO standards for those languages, but nobody could reasonably come along after the fact and say they did so because of lobbying by ISO!
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    And yet ASTM maintains a Washington, DC, presence, with public policy (a/k/a lobbying) positions. ASTM Washington Office Jeff Grove, Vice-President, Global Policy and Industry Affairs 202-xxx-xxxx Anthony Quinn, Director, Public Policy and International Trade 202-xxx-xxxx http://www.astm.org/CONTACT/headquar.htm http://www.astm.org/CONTACT/headquar.htm Even if ASTM itself doesn't directly lobby, it's ... delightfully or frighteningly charming, take your pick, that the naive view of an industry organisation not being utilised by its members for their direct benefit through rules-setting wouldn't find itself used to do so. Directly, indirectly, overtly, or otherwise. Congressional Record lists 188 results for ASTM in Congressional testimony and documents: https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B"source"%3A"congrecord"%2C"search"%3A"astm"%7D https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B"source"%3A"congrecord"... Note that ASTM is principally active at city, county, and state levels, for which comparable archives are much less available.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    ASTM are documented to have retained a lobbying firm in the UK: http://whoslobbying.com/uk/astm_international http://whoslobbying.com/uk/astm_international Sep 2010 - Nov 2010 APCO WORLDWIDE provided UK public affairs consultancy services to ASTM International. [2]
rayiner 10y ago
> I do think it's important to have laws like building codes, but why shouldn't the development be publicly funded? Because building codes are a local issue and local governments have no money?
- kevin42 10y ago
  That's a valid point. But why couldn't all of these local governments get together and collectively come up with the standards. If they can't figure a way to come up with the standards without outsourcing it to a for profit organization, it must not be a very important law. Think of how corrupt the system could be if a bunch of building material suppliers could write the law. "Buildings must be constructed from brand X materials" Then brand X has a monopoly for the materials. This is similar, only brand X is the only company that can provide you with a copy of the law, a law that you are required to comply with.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    > That's a valid point. But why couldn't all of these local governments get together and collectively come up with the standards. Because these standards are highly technical and local governments lack the expertise. > If they can't figure a way to come up with the standards without outsourcing it to a for profit organization, it must not be a very important law. These are non-profit organizations. And the part after the comma does not follow from the part before the comma. It's often very important for things to be done according to accept standards, but the government can recognize that without having the expertise to develop the standards itself.
    - kevin42 10y ago
      > Because these standards are highly technical and local governments lack the expertise. Ok, but why can't the government pay them to develop the standards. Why must the business model be for them do fund the development of the standards after the fact. I believe it is because the lawmakers do not have to pay for the laws with unpopular taxes, so they defer the fundraising to pay for the laws until after they have enacted the laws. That way they skirt the issue of taxes. > And the part after the comma does not follow from the part before the comma. I guess it's just my opinion then. If the lawmakers can't stand by and realize the cost of forming the law while they are passing it, I don't think it is important enough to impose a cost to the citizens to read what the law is.
jpgvm 10y ago
Congress already funds the development of the standards, these bodies just continue to profit from them until they are superseded, entirely due to these practices. This is very much like public funded research, it's funded by taxpayers but not available to them without movements like SciHub liberating the products of said research. It's a bit of a joke that it's allowed to continue this way for so long in the first place.
- rayiner 10y ago
  > Congress already funds the development of the standards Source?
  - specialist 10y ago
    Governments delegate rule-making authority, which have the force of law, to these industry organizations. If all laws should be public, these too should be public, regardless of funding model.
  - asmithmd1 10y ago
    https://www.nist.gov/ https://www.nist.gov/
    - rayiner 10y ago
      NIST fully funded development of the building standards at issue?
      - warkdarrior 10y ago
        NIST partially funded building standards: https://www.nist.gov/el/about-el/standards-activities https://www.nist.gov/el/about-el/standards-activities
        rayiner 10y ago
        So EL does some research that UL/ASTM/etc. rely on to develop their standards, and therefore those standards should all be free? By that logic, Google's search algorithms should be made public because it almost certainly relies on some publicly-funded CS research.

taserian 10y ago

Another aspect that seems to be glossed over is the "Incorporated By Reference" (IBR). Just as in programming, the fact that I refer to something in a pointer doesn't mean that it remains constant. What prevents the writers of a standard from changing it after a legislative body approves it as IBR? If a standard is determined to be better served by a change (due to safety, correction, or some other metric), does it need to be re-approved by the same legislative body? Or does the legislative body need to be informed of the change, and determine if it needs re-approval?

mindslight 10y ago
States generally ratify each revision of the code by updating the law. For example, the NEC is released every three years, and independently adopted by each state: http://www.electricalcodecoalition.org/state-adoptions.aspx http://www.electricalcodecoalition.org/state-adoptions.aspx Each state also makes a handful of their own amendments to the code, to account for local conditions and historic practices. An example of a local allowance (although probably informal city jurisdiction rather than statewide) is say allowing a two-family house to have only two electrical meters, rather than requiring an additional one for the "common areas", if it is owner occupied. I guess technically the NFPA could revise what they publish as the "2014 NEC", creating some legal ambiguity. But in practice they just don't.
- mindslight 10y ago
  I misremembered. I think the requirement for separate electrical service for each residence IS a MA state amendment. And then town inspector's exception was that if something was owner-occupied, the extra common-area meter socket was still required, but installing it and building out the service panel was not.

smsm42 10y ago

Agree, I hate it when I come to the article for information and it starts with "On Monday, X woke up at 7am and had eggs for breakfast". I don't care what X had for breakfast, I came there to know about the lawsuit he's involved in, so give me the lawsuit and let him east the breakfast in privacy! > The only question left is how do you fund standards development I think there's an existing model of both government contracting private companies to do things and government allocating grants for private companies to do research, etc. - so either of those can be used for developing standards too, not? The government can also have a continuous financing of certain groups that are tasked with ongoing work on creating/updating standards. Also, can be financed by involved industry - many industry players are as interested in having good standards as the government is, and are probably very interested in participating in developing those. Isn't that how IETF works?