4 ms·

> 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.
      - necovek 5y ago
        I find it bad because I believe they could optimize in a way to sustain the organization on membership fees itself. Eg. doubling those fees (21M CHF from membership in 2020 out of total 42M revenue) would have achieved this for 2020 without any optimization on their part. Or they could become more frugal. Eg. simply by removing the overhead of managing *sale" of electronic documents, they could optimize at least a little bit. Membership fees are stable, yet royalties are fluctuating. As a non-profit, they've got to end the year on 0, so they'll always spend whatever they earn.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > The original comment still makes sense: none of the fees paid to access the final document go to the original authors. 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 no mean there is not 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.)
  - necovek 5y ago
    > some of its work I guess what we perceive differently is how much work is "donated": I'd say most of it is (which does not make your statement untrue, but "some" implies a lesser part of it). Nobody is doubting the need for common standards and the need to pay for them: this is why there are membership fees, and ISO has collected half of its revenue on those — https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances. IMHO, it should optimize in a way to make its entire operations possible on that revenue (if that involves increasing fees or becoming more frugal is up to them).
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      I have no knowledge of the internal workings of ISO, and whether the current arrangement is absolutely necessary or just legacy/habit from the past. Perhaps a different funding model for the organization could be done. I'm not against the standards being freely available if it can be arranged, I just find it slightly annoying that many people seem to be acting like ISO is some moustache-twirling, evil mega-corp that is exploiting the workers because it charges a fee currently.
leoedin 5y ago
It's not nonsense. From the point of view of the standards body (which the comment was talking about) the work is free. The standards body doesn't pay anyone for the production of the standard. Yes, the writer is typically employed by a relevant company. They're not working for free. But the body from which you must buy the standard is getting it for free. This is exactly the same problem academia is facing. The big journal companies charge huge amounts for access to journals, but don't pay for their production. That's funded by universities. In both cases, the bodies collating these documents are rent seekers making far more money than their services are worth.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > From the point of view of the standards body (which the comment was talking about) the work is free. The standards body _is_ its members. It's not practically a separate company - it's a vehicle for the members.
  - necovek 5y ago
    That's a somewhat idealised view: there is certainly value in it, which is why members all pay a hefty membership fee (to the tune of 21M CHF last year, which is half of their revenue). For details, check out their 2020 financials page: https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances I am only highlighting how proceeds from the sale of ISO standards are not being distributed to ISO members, including national standardization bodies, nor any contributors. I'd hope that country ISO members would push for their membership fees to cover for distribution of standards for free (even if it meant increasing those fees) — that'd be a much more sensible approach IMHO. Or they could optimize slightly not to need those royalty fees in the first place.

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.
    - necovek 5y ago
      I find it bad because I believe they could optimize in a way to sustain the organization on membership fees itself. Eg. doubling those fees (21M CHF from membership in 2020 out of total 42M revenue) would have achieved this for 2020 without any optimization on their part. Or they could become more frugal. Eg. simply by removing the overhead of managing *sale" of electronic documents, they could optimize at least a little bit. Membership fees are stable, yet royalties are fluctuating. As a non-profit, they've got to end the year on 0, so they'll always spend whatever they earn.
throw0101a 5y ago
> The original comment still makes sense: none of the fees paid to access the final document go to the original authors. 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 no mean there is not 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.)
- necovek 5y ago
  > some of its work I guess what we perceive differently is how much work is "donated": I'd say most of it is (which does not make your statement untrue, but "some" implies a lesser part of it). Nobody is doubting the need for common standards and the need to pay for them: this is why there are membership fees, and ISO has collected half of its revenue on those — https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances. IMHO, it should optimize in a way to make its entire operations possible on that revenue (if that involves increasing fees or becoming more frugal is up to them).
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    I have no knowledge of the internal workings of ISO, and whether the current arrangement is absolutely necessary or just legacy/habit from the past. Perhaps a different funding model for the organization could be done. I'm not against the standards being freely available if it can be arranged, I just find it slightly annoying that many people seem to be acting like ISO is some moustache-twirling, evil mega-corp that is exploiting the workers because it charges a fee currently.

leoedin 5y ago

It's not nonsense. From the point of view of the standards body (which the comment was talking about) the work is free. The standards body doesn't pay anyone for the production of the standard. Yes, the writer is typically employed by a relevant company. They're not working for free. But the body from which you must buy the standard is getting it for free. This is exactly the same problem academia is facing. The big journal companies charge huge amounts for access to journals, but don't pay for their production. That's funded by universities. In both cases, the bodies collating these documents are rent seekers making far more money than their services are worth.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> From the point of view of the standards body (which the comment was talking about) the work is free. The standards body _is_ its members. It's not practically a separate company - it's a vehicle for the members.
- necovek 5y ago
  That's a somewhat idealised view: there is certainly value in it, which is why members all pay a hefty membership fee (to the tune of 21M CHF last year, which is half of their revenue). For details, check out their 2020 financials page: https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances I am only highlighting how proceeds from the sale of ISO standards are not being distributed to ISO members, including national standardization bodies, nor any contributors. I'd hope that country ISO members would push for their membership fees to cover for distribution of standards for free (even if it meant increasing those fees) — that'd be a much more sensible approach IMHO. Or they could optimize slightly not to need those royalty fees in the first place.