5 ms·

This makes me happy. It was such an obvious right thing to do, but it took so long to come to fruition. Next, it would be great if published standards were fre

This makes me happy. It was such an obvious right thing to do, but it took so long to come to fruition. Next, it would be great if published standards were freely available. It is astonishing to me that they are not.

f1shy 1y ago
Specially the ones with force of law
Someone1234 1y ago
I agree; but then we need to come up with a different funding model. Standards aren't free to publish and update, and currently the only revenue source is Pay-To-Access which most agree is problematic. The problem with government funded (e.g. funding the ones with legal enforcement), is that then we're picking winners and losers, and it may cause stagnation (or monopolies). I don't like it. I also don't have a better idea.
- nradov 1y ago
  That's not the only funding model. Many industry standards are free to access, for example HL7 FHIR. Their funding model is largely organizational membership fees, plus some additional charges for meeting attendance and training courses. This works fine. Several federal regulations mandate the use of HL7 standards for healthcare interoperability.
- cogman10 1y ago
  > The problem with government funded (e.g. funding the ones with legal enforcement), is that then we're picking winners and losers, and it may cause stagnation (or monopolies). The government funds libraries and the grants for NIH research. It's already in the business of funding both sorts of institutions. Why, then, shouldn't it also simply self-publish results for the research it paid for? The winners would be basically everyone, the losers' publishers. Publishing is already just a parasitic artifact of over-privatization of what should be government ran systems. It isn't as if publishing has a large cost in general. In fact, the government already runs a huge publishing operation in the form of PACER. Further, anyone taking grant money is already heavily working with the government to convince it to fund them.
MisterTea 1y ago
> Next, it would be great if published standards were freely available. It is astonishing to me that they are not. THIS. Especially for things like the NEC and other building safety regulations. Then move on to ISO/ANSI/IEC/etc standards.
- MisterTea 1y ago
  I should add that India does this for some IEC documents and other standards under open information acts.
- acyou 1y ago
  While you're at it, make textbooks free. And movies. And games. Who is going to pay for standards development? How will it maintain a stable funding mechanism? I refer you to recent developments with the US government.
  - horsawlarway 1y ago
    If an AHJ wants to make the standard a legal requirement... Then they pay for it and provide it to all people under their jurisdiction. Full fucking stop. I don't accept the idea that copyright provides value here. You are advocating for "secret" laws, which are pay to view, but must legally be followed. I don't think there's any possible ethical argument to be made that's an acceptable state.
    - thinkmassive 1y ago
      AHJ = authority having jurisdiction
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - acyou 1y ago
      I used to think that way as well, then I started to participate in standards development. Now, I think it's more valuable to society to have the standards properly developed, funded and regulated. You could say the same of literally any other aspect of society. Why can't it be free? Well, someone has to pay. It's a nice thought, until it meets reality. Regulation has a cost and a benefit. Compliance has a cost and a benefit. Non compliance has a cost and can have a benefit. People using/complying to standards usually benefit and are therefore good people to have pay the compliance cost, rather than shifting the tax burden onto society as a whole (someone else can pay)! It's not free, we just need to pay. (If you're not paying, you're the product)
vkou 1y ago
> It is astonishing to me that they are not. If you'd like the public to somehow pick up the tab for drafting them, sure.
- rightbyte 1y ago
  Isn't the main cost on the participants in the consortium anyway? I.e. effort amd time.
- alanbernstein 1y ago
  The standards that already exist? Is there some special meaning of "drafted" here?

f1shy 1y ago

Specially the ones with force of law

Someone1234 1y ago

I agree; but then we need to come up with a different funding model. Standards aren't free to publish and update, and currently the only revenue source is Pay-To-Access which most agree is problematic. The problem with government funded (e.g. funding the ones with legal enforcement), is that then we're picking winners and losers, and it may cause stagnation (or monopolies). I don't like it. I also don't have a better idea.

nradov 1y ago
That's not the only funding model. Many industry standards are free to access, for example HL7 FHIR. Their funding model is largely organizational membership fees, plus some additional charges for meeting attendance and training courses. This works fine. Several federal regulations mandate the use of HL7 standards for healthcare interoperability.
cogman10 1y ago
> The problem with government funded (e.g. funding the ones with legal enforcement), is that then we're picking winners and losers, and it may cause stagnation (or monopolies). The government funds libraries and the grants for NIH research. It's already in the business of funding both sorts of institutions. Why, then, shouldn't it also simply self-publish results for the research it paid for? The winners would be basically everyone, the losers' publishers. Publishing is already just a parasitic artifact of over-privatization of what should be government ran systems. It isn't as if publishing has a large cost in general. In fact, the government already runs a huge publishing operation in the form of PACER. Further, anyone taking grant money is already heavily working with the government to convince it to fund them.

MisterTea 1y ago

> Next, it would be great if published standards were freely available. It is astonishing to me that they are not. THIS. Especially for things like the NEC and other building safety regulations. Then move on to ISO/ANSI/IEC/etc standards.

MisterTea 1y ago
I should add that India does this for some IEC documents and other standards under open information acts.
acyou 1y ago
While you're at it, make textbooks free. And movies. And games. Who is going to pay for standards development? How will it maintain a stable funding mechanism? I refer you to recent developments with the US government.
- horsawlarway 1y ago
  If an AHJ wants to make the standard a legal requirement... Then they pay for it and provide it to all people under their jurisdiction. Full fucking stop. I don't accept the idea that copyright provides value here. You are advocating for "secret" laws, which are pay to view, but must legally be followed. I don't think there's any possible ethical argument to be made that's an acceptable state.
  - thinkmassive 1y ago
    AHJ = authority having jurisdiction
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - acyou 1y ago
    I used to think that way as well, then I started to participate in standards development. Now, I think it's more valuable to society to have the standards properly developed, funded and regulated. You could say the same of literally any other aspect of society. Why can't it be free? Well, someone has to pay. It's a nice thought, until it meets reality. Regulation has a cost and a benefit. Compliance has a cost and a benefit. Non compliance has a cost and can have a benefit. People using/complying to standards usually benefit and are therefore good people to have pay the compliance cost, rather than shifting the tax burden onto society as a whole (someone else can pay)! It's not free, we just need to pay. (If you're not paying, you're the product)

vkou 1y ago

> It is astonishing to me that they are not. If you'd like the public to somehow pick up the tab for drafting them, sure.

rightbyte 1y ago
Isn't the main cost on the participants in the consortium anyway? I.e. effort amd time.
alanbernstein 1y ago
The standards that already exist? Is there some special meaning of "drafted" here?