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".
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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):
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.
I'm saying nothing about the author, I'm saying me the buyer feel ripped off. Does it really matter to you whether the author or the author's company signed off on it?
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.
this discussion has been going on for decades. I've never heard any argument on the ISO side other than a blanket 'these things cost money'.
I'm sure the few people that work directly for ISO aren't feeling particularly exploited. neither are the standards authors - at least when I was doing it everyone was a well-paid engineer who enjoyed the travel and the work.
the issue is that the role of standards is best fulfilled by making them as widely available as possible. and its really not clear from an economic perspective what value ISO as an organization independent of its contributors is providing.
the IETF has a pretty reasonable track record technically, and there was never any notion about charging for standards access.
I think the burden of proof here is on ISO to show that the negative impacts of restricting distribution have any positive aspects at all.
edit: you know what, forget that. I'm pretty sure their primary cost is billing and IP enforcement. since they owe their privileged position to international treaty..its very difficult to perceive ISO as anything other than parasitic.
If you have no knowledge why are you voicing such strong opinions? You could have learned a lot about the inner workings from reading this very thread.
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.
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).
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.
> 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):
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. 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).
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.
People are bringing up facts that ISO is heavily funded by member countries (from taxes collected from their citizens), ISO standards are written by others at no cost to ISO, and yet ISO charges not-just-nominal fee for their distribution — exactly for people who "have no knowledge of the internal workings of ISO".
Nobody is acting as if they are exploiting anyone, but many are unaware of the situation above. Whether one finds that fair is up to everyone individually, but perhaps you can allow that finding it unfair is a reasonable viewpoint as well?
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"
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.
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.
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".