I think that in many cases all of the bullet items apply to active
members of a committee. The number of active members may be
significantly fewer than the total membership. At the committee level,
at least in the IEC and BSI committees that I have attended, is not
based on majority voting but on consensus, 'absence of [reasonable]
sustained objection'. Approval to publish is based on voting.
Active members understand the technical issues very well; many are
acknowledged world authorities. Standards-writing principles and
editorial rules are laid down in standards organization documents, such
as ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 , CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations Part 3
and, at the GB national level, BS 0 ('BS Zero'). But IEC and CENELEC do
not insist on committees having 'in-house' editors, although IEC now
officially allows it, while BSI seems to regard editing as a staff duty,
so the editor isn't an expert on the technology. The main point is that
editing is a skill that not everyone has, just like musicianship. So
pick your editors carefully, otherwise disharmony may be inevitable. One
document - one editor, too, because there aren't absolute 'right'
answers in editing, only 'wrong 'ones, and if two or more people try to
edit the same text you get disputes about equally acceptable wordings.
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-10 20:44, Richard Nute wrote:
Regarding the standards... standards are written by guys like you and
me. Experts in the WG and national committees are not paid for their
knowledge (which actually is one of the finest on the planet !) , and
many of them will confirm that they (or their employer) actually need
to pay to transfer their expertise to IEC. Many members will lack
motivation (or are not allowed ) to really spend time in correcting,
drafting and searching for problems in standards texts. Participating
in standards work is a kind of charity, but for those who are
nominated to defend their employers interests. So small errors are
easily overlooked, and it seems that you found a few of them.
Standards work is to a significant extent supported by people who, for
whatever reason, have more than normal time to devote to it. Quite a
large proportion are formally retired, and for them, continued
participation is not only 'making a difference' but also essential
intellectual exercise.
Well… we have a number of different standards committee member
motivations (to attend a meeting):
* Learn the standard
* Protect the employer
* Employer-paid travel with time off from normal work
* Liaison with peers
* Critique or support standards proposals
* Present a proposal
Employer may or may not encourage the member to prepare for a meeting
and to make proposals. In my experience, the work comes first, and
any preparation time is after the work is done. Meeting attendance
cannot short-change the work, so attendance at any one meeting is not
guaranteed.
Proposals for standards or standards changes are based on majority
vote, not necessarily based on engineering or science. (There are
rarely qualifications for standards committee members.) Few members
understand technical issues and English standards-writing principles.
Rich
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
