> Honestly, I don't get why people are complaining. An ISO standard costs fraction of what the developer's time reading said standard costs. That'd be true if

> Honestly, I don't get why people are complaining. An ISO standard costs fraction of what the developer's time reading said standard costs. That'd be true if there was only one. But real-world systems often involve a vast number of standards (de facto and de jure). > I would much rather like to hear if the value that ISO produces is proportional to what they charge. ISO does not pay the developers of the standards it controls. It prints paper (which few want) or sends PDFs (which cost nearly nothing to store & send). It also manages votes, which today can be done cheaply. Many of ISO's current required costs are only required because they have to implement a paywall. Don't get me wrong, I think standards have an important place in the world today. And I'd like to see ISO continue. But its antiquated approach involving charging for standards is impeding, not aiding, the use the standards.