4 ms·

Aside from obstructing access, ISO produces really low-quality standards. The prose alone leaves much to be desired in terms of clarity and concision. Knowing t

Aside from obstructing access, ISO produces really low-quality standards. The prose alone leaves much to be desired in terms of clarity and concision. Knowing that, I'm relieved each time I am to deal with an IETF standard instead, which wins on both fronts (quality and access).

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Aside from obstructing access, ISO produces really low-quality standards. Low-quality standards are themselves an access issue, and I think are reinforced by the paid-access rule, since that means the people reading the standards are a narrower group who is more specialized in dealing with ISO standards, who are more prone to become blind to “that’s just the way ISO standards are”. ANSI (also paid access) standards such as the whole ASC X-12 suite widely used in industry and a portion of which is mandated federally for healthcare under HIPAA are a complete nightmare mess, too. (And it doesn't help that not only are they paid-access standards, but they often incorporate by reference literally hundreds of other, largely paid access, standards from other bodies, some of which have become obsolete and are no longer available when the standard referencing them remains mandated.)
rjsw 6y ago
ISO doesn't write the text of the standard, that is done by members of the individual Technical Committees and Working Groups. I am currently a member of TC184/SC4 and have also been a member of TC22/SC31.
- CRConrad 6y ago
  So what is "ISO", if not the sum of its "Technical Committees and Working Groups"? If they write the text of the standard, that means ISO writes the text of the standard.
  - rjsw 6y ago
    Would you claim that Elsevier is the sum of everyone in an University ?
- pornel 6y ago
  ISO is in charge of forming these WGs/TCs and taking their output. When ISO WGs/TCs do a poor job, and ISO approves it, it's ISO's fault.
  - rjsw 6y ago
    Anyone who wants to contribute can join a WG. Voting on whether to approve something is done by member nations. The ISO central secretariat does contribute editorial ballot comments but the WG members can reject them during the ballot review.
- dada78641 6y ago
  I hope you don't mind my asking this, but as a member of technical committees, do you ever get compensated for your time and expertise? Or is it simply a case of being paid by your employer to fulfill this role? Does any of the income from standards access ever make its way back to you, your employer, or other members?
  - rjsw 6y ago
    None of the income from the sale of standards gets back to their creators. The model is no different really to that of how publishers control access to academic journals, you don't get paid directly for writing a standard or for reviewing and writing ballot comments on ones written by other people. For the TC22/SC31 work I was just being paid by my employer and they provided the travel costs to meetings. The scope of TC184/SC4 is much bigger, the core people work on it pretty much full time and get paid by industry consortia to deliver something that will meet their needs. Some parts have been written by postgraduate students who got their PhD out of the work.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Aside from obstructing access, ISO produces really low-quality standards. Low-quality standards are themselves an access issue, and I think are reinforced by the paid-access rule, since that means the people reading the standards are a narrower group who is more specialized in dealing with ISO standards, who are more prone to become blind to “that’s just the way ISO standards are”. ANSI (also paid access) standards such as the whole ASC X-12 suite widely used in industry and a portion of which is mandated federally for healthcare under HIPAA are a complete nightmare mess, too. (And it doesn't help that not only are they paid-access standards, but they often incorporate by reference literally hundreds of other, largely paid access, standards from other bodies, some of which have become obsolete and are no longer available when the standard referencing them remains mandated.)

rjsw 6y ago

ISO doesn't write the text of the standard, that is done by members of the individual Technical Committees and Working Groups. I am currently a member of TC184/SC4 and have also been a member of TC22/SC31.

CRConrad 6y ago
So what is "ISO", if not the sum of its "Technical Committees and Working Groups"? If they write the text of the standard, that means ISO writes the text of the standard.
- rjsw 6y ago
  Would you claim that Elsevier is the sum of everyone in an University ?
pornel 6y ago
ISO is in charge of forming these WGs/TCs and taking their output. When ISO WGs/TCs do a poor job, and ISO approves it, it's ISO's fault.
- rjsw 6y ago
  Anyone who wants to contribute can join a WG. Voting on whether to approve something is done by member nations. The ISO central secretariat does contribute editorial ballot comments but the WG members can reject them during the ballot review.
dada78641 6y ago
I hope you don't mind my asking this, but as a member of technical committees, do you ever get compensated for your time and expertise? Or is it simply a case of being paid by your employer to fulfill this role? Does any of the income from standards access ever make its way back to you, your employer, or other members?
- rjsw 6y ago
  None of the income from the sale of standards gets back to their creators. The model is no different really to that of how publishers control access to academic journals, you don't get paid directly for writing a standard or for reviewing and writing ballot comments on ones written by other people. For the TC22/SC31 work I was just being paid by my employer and they provided the travel costs to meetings. The scope of TC184/SC4 is much bigger, the core people work on it pretty much full time and get paid by industry consortia to deliver something that will meet their needs. Some parts have been written by postgraduate students who got their PhD out of the work.