Aaron Morris said:

>> So, who wants to participate in drafting a proposed set of standards?
>> Anyone?

> Count me out.  Standards are all fine and good, but only work when
> they're followed.

While the participation of every beekeeper is not required,
how can anyone "follow" something that does not exist?
Clearly, some group must create something worth following.
One must start somewhere, sometime.

The incentive to follow the standard would be clear - vendors that did
so would be allowed to firmly state that their equipment was "Standard",
and hence interoperable with other equipment.  Beekeepers would have
a choice, and would vote with their wallets.  Since incompatible equipment
is clearly a problem, vendors complying with standards would sell more
gear than vendors who did not.  Non-standard gear would simply be worth
much less on the open market than standard gear.

> Draft the standards, attempt to get all the wooden ware producers to adopt
> them and follow them.

The trick is to include the producers in the negotiation and drafting of the
standards, just as has been done with every other technical standard ever
written.  The process does not happen in either an ivory tower or a vacuum.

It works best when the craftsmen who make the products with their
own hands can discuss practical issues with the people who use the
products.  In this case, it means getting sawdust on one's shoes.

I think that the Bee Culture article alone should have been enough to act
as a "wake up call" to the makers of woodenware.  I would think that they
would jump at the chance to eliminate the confusion, so that each vendor
could avoid being viewed as "wrong" by some fraction of their potential
customers.

> I'll be happy when you defeat that windmill.

So while you will be "happy" to see the effort completed, you cannot even
summon up a kind word for the effort?  This seems contradictory.

If such standards had been adopted years ago, you would not have the
problem, would you?  How can one agree that there is a "problem", but
dismiss any attempt to solve the problem as "tilting at windmills"?

A pessimist says that the glass is half empty.
An optimist says that the glass is half full.
A defeatist says that the glass will be spilled.
A cynic says that it matters not - the milk is sour anyway.
An engineer says that the glass is twice as big as required for the job.

One gets to chose one's approach, and hence, one's future.

> In the meantime I'll deal with the problem which is going to be around in
> the form of USED EQUIPMENT long after the standards have been drafted
> and adopted by every manufacturer everywhere.

One must start somewhere, sometime.  Yes, it is a shame that the vendors
of woodenware must be prodded to do the obvious, and it is also a shame
that this was not done decades ago, but these are not reasons to endure,
ignore, or perpetuate the problems.

> Aaron Morris - wondering if the standards will be metric or english
> measurements!

An entertaining little straw-man argument, but it should be obvious to even
the casual observer that there is little or no need for "planet-wide standards".

There is very little potential for the movement of hives between New Zealand
and the USA, for example.  Anyway, New Zealand seems to be one of the
few places on the planet where rational, non-fuzzy thinking about this issue
has been done!  They seem to have a workable start at a standard for those
locales where lumber is milled to metric dimensions.  Woodenware is not the
sort of item that is often shipped from one end of the planet to the other, since
the shipping tends to cost more than the product.