peace is a good thing.
andy
> Sorry Pierre- and thanks for this nice considered response which I
> probably don't deserve. Was just reflecting to Phil Barker that, as
> doctors are often considered the worst patients, maybe ex-SIG
> coordinators make the worst SIG members! I realise now of course that
> you and Andy were both responding more to the general case, and to
> inform those on the list who may not have understood the standards world.
>
> So, apologies to all in fact. :-)
>
> Sarah
>
> Pierre Gorissen wrote:
>
>> Sarah,
>>
>> I think the misunderstanding in this case has been mutual. My point
>> was *not* that you were not completely correct in having problems with
>> the fact that you have to pay a nominal fee to be able to contribute
>> to the draft standard.
>> But, what I did was trying to put the issue in a broader perspective,
>> which I think Andy tried as well, by explaining that this is not
>> something BSI specific, but something standards bodies do in an
>> attempt to somehow get the funding needed to cover the cost of their
>> day to day operations.
>> What I also said, which you re-state and explain very clearly in your
>> last response, is that by asking for a nominal fee for the standards
>> documents, it might actually backfire because it might keep
>> experienced experts from commenting on the draft, just because of the
>> extra hassle of actually getting the (small) payment organised.
>> And that is why I suggested that things like this, which are in the
>> interest of all members of the community, not just the ones that cough
>> up the membership fee or are willing to go through the trouble of
>> paying for the document, should/could be handled through central
>> bodies like JISC. Because, say BSI expects about 1,000 requests for
>> documents each year, then having (for example) JISC pay them £5,000.-
>> on a yearly basis, allowing all JISC member to request the documents
>> for free (download etc.) would be in the interest of all, it would
>> probably lead to more feedback, and would be way more cost effective
>> than the current method of distribution.
>>
>> That was all.
>> I know, it does not help you in this case, and you are right, this
>> discussion probably took more of your time then actually paying for
>> the document, but I thought the purpose of your first response was to
>> start a discussion about this in a general sense, not just for this
>> specific case. If that wasn't so, then yes I did miss your point
>> completely.
>>
>> Pierre Gorissen
>>
>> Coordinator SURF SiX
>> Fontys University of Professional Education
>> The Netherlands
>> W: http://www.fontys.edu/
>> W: http://e-learning.surf.nl/SiX/english/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Op deze e-mail zijn de volgende voorwaarden van toepassing:
>>
>> http://www.fontys.nl/disclaimer
>>
>> The above disclaimer applies to this e-mail message.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>
--
andy
_______________________________________________
Andy Heath
[log in to unmask]
|