Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I'm not sure that I follow this ( the second sentence is fragmented and I'm
not sure what you were implying). However, I think you are suggesting a
checks and balance system for our representatives (I would rather not think
of them as leaders since they are representing our needs rather than leading
us into change) to keep us abreast of progress.
I would agree. At the very least, we have some recognition of
accomplishments in the monthly journal - but this is not complete enough.
First, we need to understand that we are not simply discussing SEAOC (or
each chapter for that matter). We are discussing the combined efforts of
organizations that are presently discontinuous.
Next, we need to recognize (as I'm sure Frank Lew would agree) that the
majority other than the vocal "minority (or majority whichever way you
consider them)" is presently unconnected to electronic methods. However,
this should not deter us from addressing a flow diagram of the information
path in order to identify and distribute information.
There have been so many posts that I hope I am giving credit where it is
due. I believe Bill Warren suggested separate lists for each section of
activity within each organizations. As Bill and I discussed, this would be
possible where a common server becomes the hub for information to enter and
exit. With due respect to all others, the SEAOC list is presently the
strongest hub we have. The advantage to other chapters (state and local) and
other organizations to leasing space on the SEAOC server is that it
perpetuate maintance and upkeep of the system for a common cause. This may
not be the most ecconomical move compared to leasing space on a local
server, but would appear to be a good investment in the future of the
equipment and information archiving.
Shafat brought up an interesting argument to me that those who create web
sites for their organizations want the ability to have control closer to
home. From a financial standpoint this is valid, however, it would seem to
segregate information and make it difficult to ultimatley integrate
information into common "threads".
It must funnel up and down. Those of us assumed at the end of the cycle are,
in reality, often at the begining of the cycle. Consider that new
information is discussed and assimilated at the group level before a general
agreed consensus is ready to submit to a comittee or to a board. On the
other hand, the other end becomes the beginning when necessary to report
progress, new problems needing reexamination.  Therefore, the most logical
format appears to be the consolidation of information into one source with
funds available to employ a librarian whose duties include the archiving and
summation of weekly or monthly reports in each direction.
I know this sound complicated, but it would be much more complictated when
we have to deal with twenty different librarians archiving and distributing
information for twenty different servers.
Bill Warren and I have discussed the need for our list (and the thousands of
other members of each organization) to be informed. I believe that this
requires expansion of the web, additional lists based upon committees and
boards. These lists need moderation in order to limit the overflow of
I think I am getting farther than I intended. The first step in my mind is
to have a list created for every committee and board (chapter, state,
federal and supporting organization) that can be accessed only by active
member (whether cyber or physical). If you want to participate you must
accept the responsibility of joining, however, this does not commit you to a
physical presense, it only helps to control the possible overload of
information. One way is to summarize our posts and submit them to
appropriate committees. Include supporting or cooberating posts to allow
those with opinions to be further questioned when clarity is important.
In summary, Rawn is correct, however, we have not reached the point in our
threads to discuss assimilation of information through online interaction.
This could be our next important topic that might help resolve this.
One more thing and then I'll quit.
I don't think the CAC has sufficient resources of member to follow through
will all of the changes that our evolution will bring. I would offer to
become active again in the CAC as long as I can do so on a list or in
cyberspace. I don't wish to try and resolve complicated issues in six hours
over a conference table. My time is too valuable (and necessary to maintain
a roof and food) to waste it on points that I have no opinion. I would
simply rather choose that which I understand and have strong conviction for
and get back to work when other area's with others more qualified than I
come to the table.
We can make our committee grow (not replace them) by bringing committee work
to the list!
Dennis Wish PE

-----Original Message-----
From: Rawn Nelson <rawn1(--nospam--at)>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 10:43 AM

>The contributions of the participants on the list serve were not meant to
>be overlooked.  But are the messages regarding issues, other than technical
>or humor, reviewed or tracked in an organized method by SEAOC or its four
>statewide member organizations.  I note that some board members comment
>from time to time, but maybe those who cant attend in person could feel
>they were being heard (GETTING INVOLVED) if there were an organized system
>of review and tracking by our various boards.  Our leaders can only respond
>to issues posted hereon if they are made aware.
>This note was intended as food for thought and perhaps a stimulus for
>Rawn Nelson
FN:Dennis S. Wish