From @snoopy.isoc.org:amr@linus.isoc.org Tue Jul 11 10:52:32 1995 Received: from linus.isoc.org by icarus.lis.pitt.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA23151; Tue, 11 Jul 95 10:52:32 EDT Received: by linus.isoc.org id aa14639; 11 Jul 95 10:52 EDT Received: from snoopy.isoc.org by linus.isoc.org id ab14322; 11 Jul 95 10:25 EDT X-Sender: amr@198.6.250.10 (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 10:24:37 -0400 To: "Oksala, Stephen P [BB]" From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: FW: Next round of Discussion Cc: "Garcia, Linda" , "Loughry, Don" , "'O'Donnell, Jon'" , "Spring, Mike" , rjs@farnsworth.mit.edu Message-Id: <9507111025.ab14322@linus.isoc.org> X-IMAPbase: 1249813035 1 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1 Steve, > 4.3 What are the critical aspects of the standardization process? How about the question of ossification of processes? In particular, the continued maintenance of groups that engage in ritualistic process to maintain their own existence. In some organizations, the preponderance of groups engage in this kind of activity. By contrast, the IETF groups are all adhoc by definition - existing over a definitive time period only to produce a specific standard. >4. Resolving the problem of the cost of the process, and who ought to pay >for it - the real problem behind the "free standards" arguments. In virtually all organizations, the preponderance of the costs are those contributed by the participants. The institutional costs are comparatively minor, and can generally be amply covered by nominal participant fees. In today's world, standards whose dissemination are controlled for the purposes or garnering additional revenue sow the seeds of their own demise. To quote Malamud, "secret specifications are not standards." > 4.4 What is the most important characteristic of a standard? >1. A majority of the participants in the developing group voted for it. irrelevant, unless it encompasses a broad cross-section of providers and users. >2. Public comment was solicited and responded to in a fair way, and there >was no significant opposition. irrelevant >3. The three largest companies in the industry agreed on it. significant >4. More people buy products with it than buy products with competing >standards. highly important >X3, IEEE, or IETF. I think that the topic ought to be narrowed to documents >which come out of some process where there is multiple responsibility for >development and/or approval and subsequent maintenance, and where multiple >implementations are found. Perhaps it would be better to say the "discussion" should be narrowed rather than the topic. As you note, vendor standards accepted in the marketplace are still very much standards - and often highly viable ones that may be far better than those produced by committees. >Having said that, I would opt for a definition of consensus that requires >the absence of significant sustained opposition AND a sufficient level of >support. This is a very general point, but it encompasses most of the >current standards processes. Nice way of describing this point. > 4.5 What needs to be fixed most urgently? >d. Somebody gets the bright idea that government needs to fix this problem. >e. The US establishes a government-based replacement for ANSI, with the >power to endorse standards and develop US positions for formal international >agreements. > >A similar scenario can be painted at the international level, particularly >in countries where independent thought and action are not necessarily >encouraged. I am concerned at this point that we may be close to the point >of collapse (that is, to a world where there is no perceived standardization >process) - and if so, we need to think about what ought to replace it. Your self-described paranoia fails to encompass a learning process that has ensued over the past 20 years that has encouraged a scenario of multiple standards process competing in an open marketplace. That direction has been highly beneficial to just about everyone, and it's difficult to conceive of a collapse back into the darkness of government controlled processes. Are there any indications otherwise? It's not clear if anything "needs to be fixed most urgently." > 4.6 What practice is most damaging to standardization? >1. The value of a standard is that it is a standard; when there is more than >one, its value diminishes. Just like central economic planning is in theory more valuable. It don't say this pejoratively. It's just that we're trading off near-term versus long-term effectivity here. >2. Standards groups are not (as some would like to think) independent >companies; they are mechanisms through which real companies come to >agreements with their competition and customers. I would suggest that your model for what constitutes a good standards process in today's IT world may be broken. You seem to ignore that there are real people and cultures involved here - as well as highly significant "technology transfer" process among a broad array of participants. Perhaps the single most important characteristic of the IETF or W3 Consortium are their ability to bring these diverse (some would even say perverse) parties together in ways that result in copious numbers of really creative new approaches, products, techniques, code ...and standards in very short order. >3. The existence of competitive standards essentially puts the consumer into >the same practical position he would be in if there were no standards groups > - trying to guess whose products to buy based on their architecture, and >hoping that in a multiple unit environment that things will work together. Considering that the existing semi-chaotic processes have produced one of the most dynamic and successful marketplaces, as well as technology evolutions in the history of humankind, it's not clear what you're trying to fix. > - and with many companies belonging to more than one cartel! The whole >thing seems 'not sensible' in terms of rational economic behavior. (A >thesis topic for an economist?) So you're doing to find an economist that favors central planning over the marketplace? > 4.7 Who should take responsibility for moving forward? >messy situation, particularly when some of those players believe that >'messy' is the way to go - at least for their organization. As Forrest Gump would say "messy is as messy does." Messy works spectacularly. And as one who lived through the dark ages of nice tidy monopoly standards processes, I don't think the IT industry is ready for the necessary collective pre-frontal lobotomy to return to that era. Hope we can pursue this in good humour - and maybe get someone else to join the discussion. You should get someone like MIT's Richard Solomon to join the fray. He can tell you all about the monopoly standards processes in the HDTV realm. :-) --tony