“Now there is a popular fallacy about this business of setting standards. It is the belief that it is inherently a dull business. One of the reasons that I am glad to see the present history appear is that I believe it will help to dissipate this misunderstanding. Properly conceived the setting of standards can be, not only a challenging task, but an exciting one.”
- Vannevar Bush, 1966
MEASURES FOR PROGRESS: A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
~~~
A few years ago, I became deeply interested in the world of technical standards: how they work, how they’re made, and what they are.
The term “standard” is ubiquitous enough to have become nearly invisible. It can refer to the size of screw threads, the required pasteurization levels of supermarket milk, or a million other things. Once you notice them, you realize everything in our modern world is touched and shaped by these simple rules.
I was interested in standards for pragmatic, specific reasons related to marine technology. I expected the topic to be boring: long committee processes, grandstanding engineers, endless bikeshedding. I couldn’t have been more wrong.
Done well, standards-making could be radically creative and impactful. After spending a decade building a company and being immersed in the startup world, standards-making felt like discovering a new continent.
More than anything else, I ached for a bigger conversation about my newfound passion. I wanted to find other standardizers to share lessons and stories about this important toolset. Others were looking, too, but they were using different language, like public goods and protocols.
To that end, I’m excited to say that I’ll be joining the Summer of Protocols program as a core researcher this summer. I’m going to be writing about the Bristlemouth protocol and sharing what we’ve learned about developing a new marine technology standard from scratch. But most exciting is the opportunity to work with all the other researchers, from a variety of different backgrounds and experiences, to explore this underrated idea of standards and protocols.
Expect to hear more this summer.
~~~
In researching amateur scenes and technical standards, I’m finding oral histories to be the most valuable resources. For example, here’s Dave Smith, the creator of MIDI, telling the story of the technical standard that would shape electronic music:
~~~
Robin Sloan, writer and media inventor, spent time reflecting on the question: “What do you want from the internet, anyway?”
His answers sent him down a path of uncovering the early discussions of the IETF and culminated with him deciding to build out his own idea for a protocol, which he’s calling Spring ’83. It’s a stripped-down version of the behemoth we have today. It’s an idea, Sloan hopes, that other creators and interested people could follow and learn from. I found it notable to hear him reflect on the process:
Before I go further, I want to say: I recommend this kind of project, this flavor of puzzle, to anyone who feels tangled up by the present state of the internet. Protocol design is a form of investigation and critique. Even if what I describe below goes absolutely nowhere, I’m very glad to have done this thinking and writing. I found it challenging and energizing.
Sloan tapped into the thrill of standardizing. There are no promises of riches or even success, but there is a sort of personal power that comes from shaping the tool that shapes the tools. It’s rarified air — a Highlander-like competition taking place above the realm of startups and FAANGs that quietly determines the direction of our techno-scientific future.