Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com (08/27/90)
From: Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com The argument about altered standards is just plain silly. Given a monetary incentive, I can have the whole standard rekeyed. Given the OCR equipment I have in my office, I can scan the whole document at fairly low cost. What I want I timely access to the latest draft standards. It would be nice if this was cheaper than NALPS, but my main motivation is *timely*. If I suddenly need a draft of POSIX.7, or an old draft of POSIX.2, it would be nice to get it at FTP speeds. Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 62
khb@Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages) (08/28/90)
From: khb@Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages)
In article <464@usenix.ORG> Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com writes:
., The argument about altered standards is just plain silly. Given a
monetary incentive, I can have the whole standard rekeyed. Given
the OCR equipment I have in my office, I can scan the whole document
at fairly low cost.
And if you do those things, and it is an X3 document they have
reserved the right to sue you. Such a threat already stopped one such
effort.
I agree that having standards online would be desireable; the logjam
is not technical, it is economic/political/legal.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith H. Bierman kbierman@Eng.Sun.COM | khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM
SMI 2550 Garcia 12-33 | (415 336 2648)
Mountain View, CA 94043
Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 69ralph@svnet.uucp (08/29/90)
[This was sent to std-unix-request for some reason, instead of std-unix, but it looks like a posting to me. -mod] From: ralph@svnet.uucp In article <464@usenix.ORG>, Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com writes: > From: Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com > > What I want I timely access to the latest draft standards ... > ... be nice if this was cheaper than NALPS ... Subscribing to a group's mailings gets them to my desk with 0 keystrokes and no network traffic, many times before I even know a new draft has been finished. That seems quick and painless (except for the $$). Granted, subscribing to the full mailings of ALL groups amounts to a substantial amount of paper and costs about $1,000 per year. Subscribing ONLY to drafts, instead of the full mailings, is quite a bit less, particularly if only one or two groups are of interest. Considering the nature of the material being copied, I, for one, am convinced that the charges are "cost recovery" only. (Of course, if I see an IPO for NAPS I might be convinced otherwise :-) ) In my opinion, however, compared to the cost of attending the meetings and participating in the process, the mailing subscription is a bargain. Many companies who contribute staff to the standards development process assume an annual cost of at least $15,000 per year per person for meeting time and travel. If the person actually does WORK in addition to attending the meetings, the real cost is probably 3 to 4 time that amount, even discounting lost opportunity costs and other things important to managers and accountants. Although I can personally see both sides of the argument, examining the costs of participating in one or more working groups adds a perspective that is otherwise lost. Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 71