Looking at the site it seems that SAIGlobal is an unashamedly commercial
business. I guess there is no reason why standards development shouldnt
be commercial (is there?).
But how does this fit with the work done by committees? Do members get paid?
Presumably Standards Australia owns the IP - why would I work on a
committee on anything but a commercial basis to increase the profits of
a private company?
I see that the feds are paying for free download of some of the
standards in health IT. What about usage of these in other products -
does this have to be paid for?
R
Tim Churches wrote:
Richard Hosking wrote:
Sounds all fair enough
But as ever follow the money - if Standards Australia exists to make
money via its commercial arm, are they likely to be receptive to such
ideas? Presumably this money is to make the organization more viable and
is put back into standards. However all organizations tend to look to
preserve their own interests even if this is not to the public good.
How are they constituted?
Yes, I don't have any problem with non-profit organisations engaging in
cost-recovery on their public-good work in order to ensure
sustainability, but if you look here: http://www.standards.com.au/ it
clearly directs you to SAI Global (http://www.saiglobal.com/ )which
seems very pleased to be paying its shareholders fully franked dividends
(see
http://www.saiglobal.com/NEWSROOM/ASX%20ANNOUNCEMENT/2006-02-16/2006-02-16.HTM
). That's all well and good, but I wonder what dividends the volunteer
committee members and other contributors get? Nice sandwiches at the
meetings, probably.
As Oliver points out, these types of arrangements probably work well for
big business and industrial concerns, but are they right for the health
sector?
Tim C
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
