> Don't want to shoot the messenger here (I know it's not your decision
> Ian), but:
>
> Lemmee get this straight- we have to /pay /BSI to give them feedback on
> their standard? What exactly is a "small nominal fee"?
All standards bodies have to finance their operations in
some way. Usually it is vendors and large organisations
that implement the standard and the fee is nominal
to them when related to the benefit to them - non-vendors
reap the benefit for free because of the increased interoperability
of products. If we took the standard for electric sockets
in this country and looked at how many people had
read the standard and compared that with the number
of people who benefitted from it I think the argument
would be made.
Its a new world, where anyone can input to standards
and its going to take some time to get all the business
models adjusted to that new world. If someone with a
need to contribute was denied the opporttunity then your
point may be valid. I assure you that everyone I know
that works in the standards world does the best they can
to ensure that people who have valid input to make have
opportunity to do so whatever their financial conditions.
All the individuals I know who work in standards, whether that be
in IMS, BSI or CEN-ISSS do not do it in order to make a profit
but because we feel its valuable work that benefits all and
its worth putting up with practices that are not ideal in order
to achieve what the standards achieve. BSI works hard to ensure
their process is open in my view and deserve congratulations
for what they achieve.
--
andy
_______________________________________________
Andy Heath
[log in to unmask]
|