35 ms·

The worst is that the fees only cover the cost of running ISO the-organization: standard writers are not compensated by ISO for the work they put in. My trick

The worst is that the fees only cover the cost of running ISO the-organization: standard writers are not compensated by ISO for the work they put in. My trick is to, for technical stuff, look for working groups and their mailing lists or other collaborative spaces, which are sometimes in the public, and get the latest working draft that they put out before it was turned into an official standard. That's how I learned C in-depth in my high school days from the C9X (became C99 :)) draft standard. Edit: clarify that ISO is not paying for the work being done on the standard, instead of that "writers usually do all the work for free".

dagw 5y ago
standard writers usually do all the work for free. My dad worked on a couple of standards, and while he wasn't paid by the standards body he didn't work for free. He was employed at a company and the company paid him his salary. Working on those standards was just another part of his day job.
- teddyh 5y ago
  Your dad also did not own the work he performed, the company he worked for owned it. It was that company which chose to donate the work (which your dad did) to the standards body. If I donate food to a food bank, would it be fair for someone else to say “That food wasn’t donated for free! A store got paid for that food!” No, of course not. See also: https://satwcomic.com/every-time https://satwcomic.com/every-time
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kbsspl 5y ago
    makes one think why those companies are paying for something to be a standard.
    - remram 5y ago
      Having your own data model/format/protocol become the standard makes it a lot cheaper for you to support the standard later. Everyone else has to support your stuff.
      - dagw 5y ago
        Also having your company name appear next to the name of editor or principal author of a standard is no doubt useful from a marketing point of view if part of your business is to help people implement that standard.
  - dagw 5y ago
    It was that company which chose to donate the work (which your dad did) to the standards body. That's exactly my point. The standard _organization_ gets the work for free, but the standard _writers_ are almost always paid for their work and aren't working for free. The original comment made it sound like the standard writers where somehow being exploited or where donating their time to the standard organization. In your analogy the writer is the food store, and the company is the person that bought the food to donate.
    - teddyh 5y ago
      > The original comment made it sound like the standard writers [were] somehow being exploited or [were] donating their time to the standard organization. No, I read it as pointing out that ISO does not need to be paid in order to pay its contributors, since ISO does not pay its contributors. The point was about ISO, not its contributors.
      - chii 5y ago
        the standards organization's number one goal is to continue to exist, and thus, they ask people who want the standard to pay for their existence. It's basically all a wastage, because an electronic record keeping and content management system can be cheaply administered, rather than as an organization.
- necovek 5y ago
  I've clarified that the point is that ISO is not compensating standard writers (iow, ISO does not need the money to create standards themselves), as teddyh correctly interpreted it.
- wirrbel 5y ago
  I was once in a company that took part in standard writing and while from a technical perspective the work was good, it certainly was in the business interest of the company to be part of the standard-defining process.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> standard writers usually do all the work for free this is a nonsense claim - in almost all cases they’re paid by their employers.
- syats 5y ago
  The original comment still makes sense: none of the fees paid to access the final document go to the original authors. To add insult to injury, some of those "employers" actually pay further fees to standardization bodies.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > none of the fees paid to access the final document go to the original authors Isn’t this normal in life? Most people are paid salaries or contracts for a job, not a proportion of sales. An engineer at Google is paid to build an advert system but they don’t get a proportion of the advert fees. > some of those "employers" actually pay further fees Why have you put employers in scare quotes? Do you doubt they’re employing anyone? And they don’t have to put anyone on the committee writing the standard if they don’t want to.
    - iso1210 5y ago
      The original author is the company. The company doesn't get paid by ISO for making the standards, and indeed might have to pay ISO to submit the standards. ISO then pays others to view those standards. At least that's what the argument is. The company may have employees that write the standard, that's immaterial. You're equating "Author" with "Employee" rather than "Company"
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        The company writes the standard because it wants the standard to exist. You're making it into a business transaction between the company and the standards body, when really it's a community interaction, beneficial in their minds for both the company and the industry. The standards body is just a facilitator for the companies which are members. It's not supposed to be a money-making opportunity.
throw0101a 5y ago
> Edit: clarify that ISO is not paying for the work being done on the standard, instead of that "writers usually do all the work for free". And? If the authors didn't think they got any benefits—or rather, the companies employing the authors and paying them—didn't think they got any benefit, then they wouldn't make the work on ISO standards part of their job. Just because the benefit is non-financial does not mean there is no benefit. People have recognized that having common standards is a general benefit to society. For a history of this see Engineering Rules: Global Standard Setting Since 1880 by Craig Murphy and JoAnne Yates (ISBN 9781421440033): * https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/engineering-rules https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/engineering-rules ISO has bills and overhead to cover, just like anyone else. Just because some of its work is covered by 'donated' effort doesn't mean all of it can. (I wouldn't object to having ISO standards being freely available, it's just that I can see some reasons for why they are not.)
- remram 5y ago
  Imagine buying a book for $50 on Amazon. Then you find out none of that money goes to the author, and they didn't pick the price either, Amazon are the ones charging $50. Whether the author needs that money or not is not the point, you would surely feel angry at the pricing, and would wish the author had put it on his website instead (where you could grab it for free), Amazon had priced it more fairly (paying for shipping and some overhead is fine but not $50), or the book had been authored by some GitHub organization in the open.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    > you would surely feel angry at the pricing Not if the author agreed to this arrangement ahead of time.
    - dralley 5y ago
      Perhaps, but it does bring into question whether the fees paid are actually benefiting the standards whatsoever.

dagw 5y ago

standard writers usually do all the work for free. My dad worked on a couple of standards, and while he wasn't paid by the standards body he didn't work for free. He was employed at a company and the company paid him his salary. Working on those standards was just another part of his day job.

teddyh 5y ago
Your dad also did not own the work he performed, the company he worked for owned it. It was that company which chose to donate the work (which your dad did) to the standards body. If I donate food to a food bank, would it be fair for someone else to say “That food wasn’t donated for free! A store got paid for that food!” No, of course not. See also: https://satwcomic.com/every-time https://satwcomic.com/every-time
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kbsspl 5y ago
  makes one think why those companies are paying for something to be a standard.
  - remram 5y ago
    Having your own data model/format/protocol become the standard makes it a lot cheaper for you to support the standard later. Everyone else has to support your stuff.
    - dagw 5y ago
      Also having your company name appear next to the name of editor or principal author of a standard is no doubt useful from a marketing point of view if part of your business is to help people implement that standard.
- dagw 5y ago
  It was that company which chose to donate the work (which your dad did) to the standards body. That's exactly my point. The standard _organization_ gets the work for free, but the standard _writers_ are almost always paid for their work and aren't working for free. The original comment made it sound like the standard writers where somehow being exploited or where donating their time to the standard organization. In your analogy the writer is the food store, and the company is the person that bought the food to donate.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    > The original comment made it sound like the standard writers [were] somehow being exploited or [were] donating their time to the standard organization. No, I read it as pointing out that ISO does not need to be paid in order to pay its contributors, since ISO does not pay its contributors. The point was about ISO, not its contributors.
    - chii 5y ago
      the standards organization's number one goal is to continue to exist, and thus, they ask people who want the standard to pay for their existence. It's basically all a wastage, because an electronic record keeping and content management system can be cheaply administered, rather than as an organization.
necovek 5y ago
I've clarified that the point is that ISO is not compensating standard writers (iow, ISO does not need the money to create standards themselves), as teddyh correctly interpreted it.
wirrbel 5y ago
I was once in a company that took part in standard writing and while from a technical perspective the work was good, it certainly was in the business interest of the company to be part of the standard-defining process.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> standard writers usually do all the work for free this is a nonsense claim - in almost all cases they’re paid by their employers.

syats 5y ago
The original comment still makes sense: none of the fees paid to access the final document go to the original authors. To add insult to injury, some of those "employers" actually pay further fees to standardization bodies.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > none of the fees paid to access the final document go to the original authors Isn’t this normal in life? Most people are paid salaries or contracts for a job, not a proportion of sales. An engineer at Google is paid to build an advert system but they don’t get a proportion of the advert fees. > some of those "employers" actually pay further fees Why have you put employers in scare quotes? Do you doubt they’re employing anyone? And they don’t have to put anyone on the committee writing the standard if they don’t want to.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    The original author is the company. The company doesn't get paid by ISO for making the standards, and indeed might have to pay ISO to submit the standards. ISO then pays others to view those standards. At least that's what the argument is. The company may have employees that write the standard, that's immaterial. You're equating "Author" with "Employee" rather than "Company"
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      The company writes the standard because it wants the standard to exist. You're making it into a business transaction between the company and the standards body, when really it's a community interaction, beneficial in their minds for both the company and the industry. The standards body is just a facilitator for the companies which are members. It's not supposed to be a money-making opportunity.

throw0101a 5y ago

> Edit: clarify that ISO is not paying for the work being done on the standard, instead of that "writers usually do all the work for free". And? If the authors didn't think they got any benefits—or rather, the companies employing the authors and paying them—didn't think they got any benefit, then they wouldn't make the work on ISO standards part of their job. Just because the benefit is non-financial does not mean there is no benefit. People have recognized that having common standards is a general benefit to society. For a history of this see Engineering Rules: Global Standard Setting Since 1880 by Craig Murphy and JoAnne Yates (ISBN 9781421440033): * https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/engineering-rules https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/engineering-rules ISO has bills and overhead to cover, just like anyone else. Just because some of its work is covered by 'donated' effort doesn't mean all of it can. (I wouldn't object to having ISO standards being freely available, it's just that I can see some reasons for why they are not.)

remram 5y ago
Imagine buying a book for $50 on Amazon. Then you find out none of that money goes to the author, and they didn't pick the price either, Amazon are the ones charging $50. Whether the author needs that money or not is not the point, you would surely feel angry at the pricing, and would wish the author had put it on his website instead (where you could grab it for free), Amazon had priced it more fairly (paying for shipping and some overhead is fine but not $50), or the book had been authored by some GitHub organization in the open.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > you would surely feel angry at the pricing Not if the author agreed to this arrangement ahead of time.
  - dralley 5y ago
    Perhaps, but it does bring into question whether the fees paid are actually benefiting the standards whatsoever.