Ah, charge 'em with a [large unit] of restraint and they'll whittle it
down to a [small unit] of restraint.
Yes, we know about (and admire) the Metric Conversion Board in Australia
and its accomplishments. Surely, though, they were not charged with
-- "Provide assistance to anyone feeling ambitious about metricating."
nor with
-- "Nudge the folks toward metric units at a pace of their choosing,
say, finishing within a century or more."
I presume there was some explicit or implicit imperative, or at least an
expectation, to accomplish the task fully within some short span of time
and across all sectors.
For that, I used "fiat" and "mandate".
Jim
Pat Naughtin wrote:
On 2009/08/29, at 02:53 , James R. Frysinger wrote:
I can see a benefit to a few years of permissible metric-only labeling
in the marketplace, but essentially it's going to take a federal
mandate (a fiat!) to metricate the U.S., rather like what Australia
did. (But NO MORE millimeter v. centimeter postings on this thread --
please! -- go get your own thread.)
Dear Jim and All,
1 Mandate or fiat
If there was a mandate or fiat for metrication in Australia, we didn't
notice. What we saw was a carefully planned and co-ordinated program
where industries chose how they would upgrade to the metric system. This
followed an act of parliament, in 1970, that did little more than set up
the Metric Conversion Board (See
http://152.91.38.99/cgi-bin/download.pl?/scale/data/histact/4/2233 to
obtain a copy). Essentially metrication was done on an industry by
industry basis without much government involvement, mainly guidance and
research from members of the Metric Conversion Board. I recall that
there were extensive opportunities for anyone to be involved who was
able, and wanted, to contribute to the metrication process. Some of
these industry initiatives were highly successful, quick, and soon had
direct benefits in terms of the economies of these successful
industries; others were not so successful and are still struggling in
2009 with a long, drawn-out, bitterly fought, and very expensive metric
conversion process.
2 (un-named to preserve your sensitivity)
From my careful observation over many years (since the late 1960s), an
obvious difference between successful and unsuccessful metrication
transitions is the choice of a small length unit (un-named here).
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, /Metrication Leaders Guide,/ that you can obtain
from http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped
thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern
metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save
thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their
businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different
trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and
government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's
clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the
metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA.
See http://www.metricationmatters.com
<http://www.metricationmatters.com/>for more metrication information,
contact Pat at [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> or to get the free
'/Metrication matters/' newsletter go
to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
--
James R. Frysinger
632 Stony Point Mountain Road
Doyle, TN 38559-3030
(C) 931.212.0267
(H) 931.657.3107
(F) 931.657.3108
