Source for ISA standard

M

Matthew da Silva

Here we go again...

Bob, please explain why my, in reality explicit and not purported, 'penchant' (which means an inclination towards), is a drawback, since you
present not one reason to support your statement. Same as the last person, in fact...

Furthermore, I fail to see why anonymity would reduce a feeling of satisfaction or pride. On the contrary, it may increase those feelings. In
my post there are several arguments, but none of them have attracted the direct attention of any person. All points to the contrary so far are
unsubstantiated opinion. Such argument as this, as I said before, would carry no water in an anonymous volunteer environment.

Notwithstanding recognition, I would question whether it is at all important to have one's name published on standards. It would seem to me that the goal was the creation of standards that are good and useful rather than the publishing of the names of participants. First one should ask What is the goal? Then the solution will more rapidly appear. The pleasures of participation and other intangibles would serve to reward participants.

Why is it irrelevant that there be anonymity? What is the reason? Several people have claimed such a position but none have put up a single reason why it should not work. It have demonstrated many.

Rgds,
Matthew Yamatake Tokyo
 
M

Matthew da Silva

I think the reasons for anonymity are several including:

1. desire to avoid taking any personal responsibility for something that might go wrong.

<response> Why is this so? Why should anonymity reduce accountability a whit? Have you any proof or reason? In fact, I would maintain that since anonymity requires guarding the validity of one's persona and highlighting the value of one's contributions in the absence of any non-technical supports, anonymity would increase the importance of accountability for the
individual. Since the individual would not be allowed to cancel a persona and make a new one (that is one of the rules), if they simply make bad judgements and then try to support them by stating (as some posters here) unsupported facts then they just have to work harder to reestablish their credibility again.

2. desire to have the result be an organizational effort rather than an individual one.

<response> What is the result? It would seem to me that the result would be a set of standards that surpass and incorporate the efforts of any individual or group of individuals. Indeed, what is so unsavory about organizational efforts? If individual thought there was no value to organizing, I would maintain that there would be a real lack of organizations, friend. It's not
as though participation were a precondition for practicing as an engineer, as taxes are.

3. desire to not have an "expert" out there who speaks with more authority then other "experts" because he/she wrote the standard, or a big chunk of it.

<response> Instead of seeking praise from one's peers, one should perhaps seek to assist in the furtherance of the art of engineering, such as it is. It seems to me that there is a real need to improve the standards process. I didn't start this discussion on standards; it happened in the list by general fiat and has held its momentum over a period of many months.

My suggestion, which is a very good one, is that it is possible to make a standard in an online environment that significantly reduces the cost of
creating standards, at least in the long term.

In addition, because I have been involved in such a project, I suggested that anonymity would be a value-added function. The reason why I have
already said is that it takes the spotlight off the personalities and puts it onto their words. This is a fact. In ODP, which is now the largest online directory and is entirely created by volunteers (bar a handful of paid staff; maybe ten people out of 30K editors, I don't know) has surpassed all others and is practically the ONLY place to get your company or other site listed for free. Yahoo! leverages $200 per listing, Looksmart likewise. Why? Because they support staffs of editors.

Inside ODP, the anonymity is an added value, without which the directory would not have grown to its present size because it gives people a place to dvelop not only the ontology of the directory and their categories, but also
to develop their online and other written techniques. The community that is created sustains itself by participation and support, and this is a facet of the community spirit that it largely exchewes some aspects of plain-vanilla
social interaction which demand recognition based on conventional perception and which are often reactive in nature. I could go on, but it would take more of my time than I'm able to give right now.

I truly think that such an environment is the way of the future, and especially for explosive atmospheres such as are present where standards are debated, the anonymity factor serves as a buffer and a damper on individuals' reactions. For XML, for example, I can think of no other way to do it in a timely and (and this is critical) truly iterative fashion.

For standards, once printed and published, should not languish in the archives but should be updated continuously. How to manager this? How to
address issues such as comprehensiveness and comprehension, updates and addenda, changes and quality control? instead of having it done by staff and in meetings to which people come for several days, it can all be done online from the office, from home, from the back of a truck. Anywhere you are, in fact.
 
J
- -> -----Original Message-----
- -> From: Matthew da Silva [mailto:[email protected]]
- ->
- -> Here we go again...
- -> Bob, please explain why my, in reality explicit and not purported,
- -> 'penchant' (which means an inclination towards), is a
- -> drawback, since you present not one reason to support your statement.
- -> Same as the last person in fact...

For those that are familiar with open source software, I would throw out the term Noosphere. This is one of the motivators for people to
contribute freely: The recognition for their exceptional work. If I was asked to contribute my time and energy without any recognition
whatsoever, I would not do so. Any contributions I make to any project come with some sort of payment. Whether that payment is in cash or in ego gratification, it still exists. Don't mean to sound conceited, but if you told me I was not going to receive either form of payment, I would not contribute. I suspect there are many others
who feel the same way, and I think many of the OSS developers do so for the same reason.
 
M

Matthew da Silva

<response> Joe, me too. if there were no recognition, why would it happen that ODP grows beyond the wildest dreams of its planners. If people got no recognition, they wouldn't do it. But the fact is that they get recognition and that's why they participate. Participants who really do exceptional work get more recognition, regardless of what their name is or whether they've published before or whatnot. Focus is only on their words and their actions, not what people could otherwise think of their opinions. Peer pressure and the corresponding reward system is very finely attuned to achievement and other factors, in accrediting or avoiding.

Matthew Yamatake Tokyo
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

> Why is it irrelevant that there be anonymity? What is the reason?
> Several people have claimed such a position but none have put up a
> single reason why it should not work. It have demonstrated many.

Actually, there have been such reasons posted previously.

Anonymity is not irrelevant, it is simply not conducive to standards development. Standards development requires compromise. Sometimes compromise must be made even though you feel strongly in the opposite direction.
Compromise requires trust. Trust is an essential element of the standards process. Anonymity is not conducive to trust.

Although, generally, the designes/developers of the standards that drive the Internet make specific efforts to allow users of the Internet to be anonymous, NONE of the successful (and free) IETF standards that run the Internet and that are so admired on this list were developed in anonymity. The IETF would never consider anonymously developed standards. Anonymity would spoil the standards process not improve it.

As an example take this list for instance. This discussions on this list are conducted with civility in spite of the fact that there are strong disagreements between some of the parties. Compare that to numerous anonymous lists like Usenet, IRC, etc. The so-called "flames" that occur here are not even warm embers compared to the vitriol that is typical of the anonymous side
of the Internet. One of the factors that makes this forum successful for civil discussion is that you know who you are dealing with.

Another example: Imagine an anonymous standards committee involving communications for PLCs. Most comittees limit the number of participants from
any one company in order to avoid "stacking" the votes. For instance, ISO/IEC allows only one vote per country. Most country rules limit each company to one vote per standard. A small company has the same voting influence as a large company in most countries (including the US). In an anonymous committee there is no way to impose these limits. Who would devote the effort to a standard when their efforts could be made pointless simply because a company stacked the
vote?

I think Bob's assertions about you can't get credit anonymously were a little facetious and were off the main point. The question he is asking, that hasn't been answered, is to explain how anonymity helps the standards process.
Improving the pride factor is unlikely to improve the situation with standards in the IA industry. I don't think we are suffering from a lack of pride. IMHO, we are suffering from a lack of perceived value in standards.

Regards,
Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.
 
M

Matthew da Silva

>Why is it irrelevant that there be anonymity? What is the reason?
> Several people have claimed such a position but none have put up a
> single reason why it should not work. It have demonstrated many.

Actually, there have been such reasons posted previously.

Anonymity is not irrelevant, it is simply not conducive to standards
development. Standards development requires compromise. Sometimes compromise
must be made even though you feel strongly in the opposite direction.
Compromise requires trust. Trust is an essential element of the standards
process. Anonymity is not conducive to trust.

<response> I beg to differ on this opinion, which is not a reason, rather a bias without rational base. Why should anonymity repel trust? A reasoned response, please, Ralph.

Although, generally, the designes/developers of the standards that drive the
Internet make specific efforts to allow users of the Internet to be
anonymous,
NONE of the successful (and free) IETF standards that run the Internet and
that
are so admired on this list were developed in anonymity. The IETF would
never
consider anonymously developed standards. Anonymity would spoil the
standards
process not improve it.

<response> One reason, please. Just because it hasn't happened before in your experience, doesn't mean it is impossible per se. Maybe the IETF has something to learn, too.

As an example take this list for instance. This discussions on this list are
conducted with civility in spite of the fact that there are strong
disagreements between some of the parties.

<response> This is a chat room, not a working environment. There's nothing seriously at stake here. The comparison is invalid. Flames are a part of life, and it occurs to me that without flames we would have no need for engineers. ;)

Another example: Imagine an anonymous standards committee involving
communications for PLCs. Most comittees limit the number of participants
from
any one company in order to avoid "stacking" the votes. For instance,
ISO/IEC
allows only one vote per country.

<response> I didn't say that no controls were needed. I said that the identity of participants should be hidden. It would be the role of the
governing council or entity to approve and accept participants. Once approved, their anonymity would positively assist in speeding and refining
to a point hitherto unknown, any works under their guidance (warning: that last part is based on personal experience but should not be taken for
incontrovertible fact).

Most country rules limit each company to one
vote per standard. A small company has the same voting influence as a large
company in most countries (including the US).

<response> It occurs to me that the reason why voting is required at all is because people don't trust each other... Hmm, am I missing something?
Because in an anonymous environment there is no 'stakeholder' and no concern about 'representation,' and the only conceivable personal outcome of the franchise is the pleasure of participation, any regulatory or
'administrative quality' control would be in principle redundant, if not essentially heretical. Aghast, is how I feel that there should even be a voting process for selection; as though it were a jury and the technologies the defendants. I fail to see how such a contorted community could produce an effective offering in terms of 'standards' which are 'open' and
'universal'.

In an anonymous committee there
is no way to impose these limits. Who would devote the effort to a standard
when their efforts could be made pointless simply because a company stacked
the
vote?

<response> In an anonymous community there is no way to 'stack the votes' because peer pressure and the fear of exclusion for any such behavior is
adequate motivation to play nice.... Like that last scene in Toy Story; they come out of the sandpit to defend abuses of power, and they do so _because_ there is anonymity. The identities of individuals or companies losing their materiality, the immeditate goal becomes the prime target, instead of peripheral motivations such as have been presented here as 'reasons'.

I think Bob's assertions about you can't get credit anonymously were a
little
facetious and were off the main point. The question he is asking, that
hasn't
been answered, is to explain how anonymity helps the standards process.
Improving the pride factor is unlikely to improve the situation with
standards

<response> Please re-read my previous posts and also this one. In fact, why not volunteer to become an ODP editor yourself? If you email me privately I will take an active interest in any recruitment. See for yourself. If you don't like it, just quit at no cost bar a few months of ISDN access.

in the IA industry. I don't think we are suffering from a lack of pride.
IMHO, we are suffering from a lack of perceived value in standards.

<response>No comment.
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

> > Anonymity is not irrelevant, it is simply not conducive to standards
> > development. Standards development requires compromise. Sometimes
> > compromise must be made even though you feel strongly in the opposite
> > direction. Compromise requires trust. Trust is an essential element of
> > the standards process. Anonymity is not conducive to trust.
>
> <response>I beg to differ on this opinion, which is not a reason,
> rather a bias without rational base. Why should anonymity repel trust? A
> reasoned response, please, Ralph.

I'm sorry, but I thought it was intuitively obvious. How can you trust someone you don't know? I guess it is an ingrained thing being raised in a city and all. I may be civil to strangers but I don't trust strangers. I might even respect a total stranger who articulates a certain view point but I would not trust them until I know them. If someone is unwilling to
identify themselves, I am unwilling to trust them. I don't think I am that different from many people in this regard. How is it "rational" to trust people you don't know?

You will have to excuse me for presenting my opinions as reasons. I never presented them as facts. This entire issue is one of opinion. It is
therefore necessary for me to present my opinions as the reasons for my assertions. The facts that I draw on are anecdotal and are based upon my
own participation in standards and would certainly bore this group. However, my opinions are based upon a rational interpretation of the facts that I have seen. I don't expect you to accept my opinions as fact or even as your own opinion, but my opinions are not irrational.

> > Although, generally, the designes/developers of the standards that
> > drive the Internet make specific efforts to allow users of the
> > Internet to be anonymous, NONE of the successful (and free) IETF
> > standards that run the Internet and that are so admired on this list were
> > developed in anonymity. The IETF would never consider anonymously
> > developed standards. Anonymity would spoil the standards process not
> > improve it.
>
> <response>One reason, please. Just because it hasn't happened before
> in your experience, doesn't mean it is impossible per se. Maybe the
> IETF has something to learn, too.

I never suggested it was impossible. I simply stated that anonymity is not conducive to standards and I haven't seen anything yet to change my mind. The line of this thread started with the assertion that if the standards
process was anonymous then truly "open" standards adoption in the IA industry would get better. I don't see how anonymity in the standards
process addresses any problem that the IA industry currently has with standards. And, I don't think the IETF is perfect but they do seem to have developed a numer of successful open standards without any anonymity of the participants. I would think that it makes sense to try to learn from a successful standards organization.

> > Another example: Imagine an anonymous standards committee involving
> > communications for PLCs. Most comittees limit the number of
> > participants from any one company in order to avoid "stacking" the
> > votes. For instance, ISO/IEC allows only one vote per country.
>
> <response>I didn't say that no controls were needed. I said that the
> identity of participants should be hidden. It would be the role of the
> governing council or entity to approve and accept participants. Once
> approved, their anonymity would positively assist in speeding and
> refining to a point hitherto unknown, any works under their guidance
> (warning: that last part is based on personal experience but should not
> be taken for incontrovertible fact).

For one thing, what you describe is not really an anonymous process. The governing council knows who everybody is. If you know and trust the
governing council then I suppose that there is some minimal trust in the people they select for the process. If there are never any conflicts and
the participants never have any ulterior motives then this small level of trust might be sufficient.

However, I don't think that this is practical. Regardless of the intentions of the governing council there will be conflicts and someone
will have an ulterior motive. The standards process must still function in this environment. I think that anonymity will get in the way of resolving these conflicts because you will never really be able to understand why someone is taking the position they are because you won't know anything about them.

> > In an anonymous committee there
> > is no way to impose these limits. Who would devote the effort to a
> > standard when their efforts could be made pointless simply because a
> > company stacked the vote?
>
> <response>In an anonymous community there is no way to 'stack the
> votes' because peer pressure and the fear of exclusion for any such
> behavior is adequate motivation to play nice.... Like that last scene
> in Toy Story; they come out of the sandpit to defend abuses of power,
> and they do so _because_ there is anonymity. The identities of
> individuals or companies losing their materiality, the immeditate goal
> becomes the prime target, instead of peripheral motivations such as have
> been presented here as 'reasons'.

I think here is the crux of the difference between us. You believe that by hiding the underlying commercial motivations of participants via anonymity that the commercial interests will be neutralized and everybody will play
nice as a result. I believe that hiding these interests via anonymity will make them more difficult to overcome and will impede the process of developing an objective standard and/or make the result more biased towards the hidden commercial interests. An effective standards process must be able to mediate between parties with strong interests commercial and otherwise. Public voting is the worst method for resolving technical conflicts in standards except for every other method that has been tried &lt;apologies to Winston Churchill>.

Regards,
Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.
 
M

Matthew da Silva

For one thing, what you describe is not really an anonymous process. The
governing council knows who everybody is.

&lt;response> Yes, that's correct. The process is anonymous, but the participants are vetted for knowledge and capability.

However, I don't think that this is practical. Regardless of the
intentions of the governing council there will be conflicts and someone
will have an ulterior motive.

&lt;response> Yes, but that's the thing; ulterior motives are immediately identified as such and the community resolves the issue through debate in
the open forums. If the commitment of participants is adequate (and I assume it would be) there will be very little ground where a seed of ulterior motivation could take root.

> <response>In an anonymous community there is no way to 'stack the
> votes' because peer pressure and the fear of exclusion for any such
> behavior is adequate motivation to play nice....

I think here is the crux of the difference between us. You believe that by
hiding the underlying commercial motivations of participants via anonymity
that the commercial interests will be neutralized and everybody will play
nice as a result. I believe that hiding these interests via anonymity will
make them more difficult to overcome and will impede the process of
developing an objective standard and/or make the result more biased
towards the hidden commercial interests. An effective standards process
must be able to mediate between parties with strong interests commercial
and otherwise. Public voting is the worst method for resolving technical
conflicts in standards except for every other method that has been tried
<apologies to Winston Churchill>.

&lt;response> The behavior that I have observed is that due to the interest and satisfaction of participation -- agreed, in my experience, the location had a somewhat lighter commercial burden than in a standards process -- the governing narrative is swift and positive in the direction of resolving issues, and cascades past objections and blockages that would otherwise block a less rapid, more highly moderated flow. This characteristic tends to make it very hard for bottlenecks to form, since in the event that such an obstacle should form, the narrative immediately finds an alternative route toward its ultimate goal. This would not be possible in a situation where vested interests had a public persona, since any group would treat others in
a way that it itself would prefer to be treated, and conventions of long acquaintance should provide glue for the impediments that normally gather at points of critical passage.

In the absence of some of these conventions (it is true that others occur, but that I could help with), and in a vehicle having a larger moment (I'm not sure if these terms are correct, but possibly you smart engineers understand my drift) which derives from the nature of the medium (internet time is swift, I think most would agree) a fast and open method can speed the production of standards.

Maybe a test case can be identified.
 
J

Johan Bengtsson

>As an example take this list for instance. This discussions on this list are
>conducted with civility in spite of the fact that there are strong
>disagreements between some of the parties. Compare that to numerous anonymous
>lists like Usenet, IRC, etc. The so-called "flames" that occur here are not
>even warm embers compared to the vitriol that is typical of the anonymous
>side of the Internet. One of the factors that makes this forum successful
>for civil discussion is that you know who you are dealing with.

Ehh, what?
Does everyone on this list actually know who everyone else is except me? I don't think so.
(My reply has actually not anything to do about whether you need to be able to be anonymous when developing a standard or not)
I certanly don't know you, ok I could find you by your company, and I recognise the name of that. I do even think I have seen your name in several other posts (I might be very wrong on this point).
For some other people on this list I don't even have that part of recognition, for other I can almost recognise who wrote it before I get to the name.
How many on the list recognises me? I guess there are some since I try to answer the posts I feel I have an answer to, but how many know more than simply recognise my tagline?

Then the interesting question is: is this small recognition enough?

>Another example: Imagine an anonymous standards committee involving
>communications for PLCs. Most comittees limit the number of participants from
>any one company in order to avoid "stacking" the votes. For instance, ISO/IEC
>allows only one vote per country. Most country rules limit each company to
>one vote per standard. A small company has the same voting influence as a
>large company in most countries (including the US). In an anonymous
>committee there is no way to impose these limits. Who would devote the
>effort to a standard when their efforts could be made pointless simply
>because a company stacked the vote?

I fail to see why this would be the best option in order to get the best standard. You don't have to answer it however.

>I think Bob's assertions about you can't get credit anonymously were a little
>facetious and were off the main point. The question he is asking, that hasn't
>been answered, is to explain how anonymity helps the standards process.
>Improving the pride factor is unlikely to improve the situation with
standards
>in the IA industry. I don't think we are suffering from a lack of pride.
>IMHO, we are suffering from a lack of perceived value in standards.

Good point.


----------------------------------------
P&L, Innovation in training
Box 252, S-281 23 H{ssleholm SWEDEN
Tel: +46 451 49 460, Fax: +46 451 89 833
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.pol.se/
----------------------------------------
 
M

Mark Blunier

> > <response>I beg to differ on this opinion, which is not a reason,
> > rather a bias without rational base. Why should anonymity
> repel trust? A
> > reasoned response, please, Ralph.
>
> I'm sorry, but I thought it was intuitively obvious. How can you trust
> someone you don't know?

How can you trust someone you do know?

> I guess it is an ingrained thing
> being raised in a
> city and all. I may be civil to strangers but I don't trust
> strangers. I
> might even respect a total stranger who articulates a certain
> view point
> but I would not trust them until I know them.

There are very few people that I know that don't intentionally lie about some things. In the US, many people accept and seemed to expect people to lie, even when under oath, and the lies would be perjury. Bill Clinton comes to mind. The better question, is their position or opinion justified by the facts presented?

> If someone is
> unwilling to
> identify themselves, I am unwilling to trust them.
> I don't think I am that
> different from many people in this regard. How is it
> "rational" to trust
> people you don't know?

I don't know you. But I trust that you are giving your truthful opinions. But your honesty is not that important, if you can give the basis for your statements. If what you are saying can only be backed up from, 'your opinion and your annectdotal evidence', then I need to trust you.

> You will have to excuse me for presenting my opinions as
> reasons. I never
> presented them as facts. This entire issue is one of opinion. It is
> therefore necessary for me to present my opinions as the
> reasons for my
> assertions. The facts that I draw on are anecdotal and are
> based upon my
> own participation in standards and would certainly bore this group.
> However, my opinions are based upon a rational interpretation
> of the facts
> that I have seen. I don't expect you to accept my opinions as
> fact or even
> as your own opinion, but my opinions are not irrational.
>
> > > Although, generally, the designes/developers of the standards that
> > > drive the Internet make specific efforts to allow users of the
> > > Internet to be anonymous, NONE of the successful (and free) IETF
> > > standards that run the Internet and that are so admired
> on this list were
> > > developed in anonymity. The IETF would never consider anonymously
> > > developed standards. Anonymity would spoil the standards
> process not
> > > improve it.
> >
> > <response>One reason, please. Just because it hasn't happened before
> > in your experience, doesn't mean it is impossible per se. Maybe the
> > IETF has something to learn, too.
>
> I never suggested it was impossible. I simply stated that
> anonymity is not
> conducive to standards and I haven't seen anything yet to
> change my mind.
> The line of this thread started with the assertion that if
> the standards
> process was anonymous then truly "open" standards adoption in the IA
> industry would get better. I don't see how anonymity in the standards
> process addresses any problem that the IA industry currently has with
> standards. And, I don't think the IETF is perfect but they do
> seem to have
> developed a numer of successful open standards without any
> anonymity of
> the participants. I would think that it makes sense to try to
> learn from a
> successful standards organization.

In the case of ISA standards, the ISA is the presenter. For me, its do I trust the ISA, and the people in charge of creating and maintaining
the standards. If the ISA put out a standard that says all 75 volt DC wires should be purple, I don't care if Fred Flintstone wrote that part
of the standard, I need to be able to trust that the ISA believes this is what the standard should be, and if my plant is going to follow ISA
standards, then all 75 volt DC wires would be purple, even if I knew Fred was an idiot, lies under oath, and cheats on his taxes. It is not Fred's standard, its the ISA standard. (Note, I made this up, there is no such 75 volt standard that I know of.)

> > > Another example: Imagine an anonymous standards committee
> involving
> > > communications for PLCs. Most comittees limit the number of
> > > participants from any one company in order to avoid "stacking" the
> > > votes. For instance, ISO/IEC allows only one vote per country.
> >
> > <response>I didn't say that no controls were needed. I said that the
> > identity of participants should be hidden. It would be the
> role of the
> > governing council or entity to approve and accept participants. Once
> > approved, their anonymity would positively assist in speeding and
> > refining to a point hitherto unknown, any works under their guidance
> > (warning: that last part is based on personal experience
> but should not
> > be taken for incontrovertible fact).
>
> For one thing, what you describe is not really an anonymous
> process. The
> governing council knows who everybody is. If you know and trust the
> governing council then I suppose that there is some minimal
> trust in the
> people they select for the process. If there are never any
> conflicts and
> the participants never have any ulterior motives then this
> small level of
> trust might be sufficient.

And if I don't trust them, does that mean I shouldn't use the standard? Even if I think its good anyway?

> However, I don't think that this is practical. Regardless of the
> intentions of the governing council there will be conflicts
> and someone
> will have an ulterior motive. The standards process must
> still function in
> this environment. I think that anonymity will get in the way
> of resolving
> these conflicts because you will never really be able to
> understand why
> someone is taking the position they are because you won't
> know anything
> about them.

That presumes that that you can change their position, and this debate takes place before the standards are implemented.

<SNIP>

> I think here is the crux of the difference between us. You
> believe that by
> hiding the underlying commercial motivations of participants
> via anonymity
> that the commercial interests will be neutralized and
> everybody will play
> nice as a result. I believe that hiding these interests via
> anonymity will
> make them more difficult to overcome and will impede the process of
> developing an objective standard and/or make the result more biased
> towards the hidden commercial interests.

A standard may be biased toward a hidden commercial interest, but that doesn't make it a bad standard. Modbus is a standard that was designed with Modicons interests in mind, but that doesn't make it a bad standard. Do you know any of the people that wrote the standard, so you can determine if you can put your faith in that standard?


Mark Blunier
"Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

...snip...snip...

> In the case of ISA standards, the ISA is the presenter. For me, its
> do I trust the ISA, and the people in charge of creating and
> maintaining the standards. If the ISA put out a standard that says
> all 75 volt DC wires should be purple, I don't care if Fred Flintstone
> wrote that part of the standard, I need to be able to trust that the ISA
> believes this is what the standard should be, and if my plant is going to
> follow ISA standards, then all 75 volt DC wires would be purple, even if I
> knew Fred was an idiot, lies under oath, and cheats on his taxes. It is
> not Fred's standard, its the ISA standard. (Note, I made this up, there is
> no such 75 volt standard that I know of.)

You make good points, but the issues I was trying to address are related to the process of making standards, not the standards itself. When all is
said and done you certainly can and should judge a standard on its own merits regardless of how it was created (many Internet standards are 100%
proprietary but they are still good because they have enabled the Internet to work). I remain very skeptical that anonymity during the standards
process will create better standards.

Regards,
Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.
 
Top