🚀 go-pugleaf

[This was sent to std-unix-request for some reason, instead of std-unix,
but it looks like a posting to me.  -mod]

From:  ralph@svnet.uucp

In article <464@usenix.ORG>, Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com writes:
> From:  Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com
> 
> What I want I timely access to the latest draft standards ...
> ... be nice if this was cheaper than NALPS ...

Subscribing to a group's mailings gets them to my desk with 0 keystrokes
and no network traffic, many times before I even know a new draft
has been finished.  That seems quick and painless (except for the $$).  

Granted, subscribing to the full mailings of ALL groups amounts to a
substantial amount of paper and costs about $1,000 per year.  
Subscribing ONLY to drafts, instead of the full mailings, is quite
a bit less, particularly if only one or two groups are of interest.  
Considering the nature of the material being copied, I, for one, am 
convinced that the charges are "cost recovery" only.  (Of course, if 
I see an IPO for NAPS I might be convinced otherwise :-) )

In my opinion, however, compared to the cost of attending the meetings 
and participating in the process, the mailing subscription is a bargain.  
Many companies who contribute staff to the standards development process 
assume an annual cost of at least $15,000 per year per person for 
meeting time and travel.  If the person actually does WORK in addition 
to attending the meetings, the real cost is probably 3 to 4 time that 
amount, even discounting lost opportunity costs and other things important
to managers and accountants.  

Although I can personally see both sides of the argument, examining the
costs of participating in one or more working groups adds a perspective
that is otherwise lost.  

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 71