Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: RE: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC
- From: "Dennis S. Wish" <wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 18:03:15 -0700
Thanks Bill, Possibly 'blasphemous' was a bit strong (and then again was my temper at the time). Your last question asks how contributions are currently made and I can only answer not in keeping with current needs. We never restricted committee work to members only, but then again, few non-members participated who were not employee's of both local building departments and manufacturers with special interests. The IBC proposes to create an internationally accepted code - not one, which is restricted to region or by acceptance of one publication over another. What benefit is there to the development of international codes that do not, at the start, consider the opinions and work of other organizations? Bill Cain stated "We should be offering up our ideas and working toward a synergistic solution. I will agree that this process is neither comfortable or rapid. But the fact is that it produces better decisions." I feel that this is both well stated and appropriate at any level. However, to accomplish this requires international input in the development process. I believe it is best to do this at the onset than try to redesign an existing complicated model. Bill Cain also stated " I was disturbed when the SEAOC Executive Director commented that he didn't feel putting the minutes of Board meetings on the webpage was particularly timely or helpful to the membership as that couldn't be done until they are official and that would take THIRTY DAYS until the next meeting." This discussion has been had over and over again, but the SEAOC Executive Director Alan Goldstein has, despite the great publicity he received in the last SEAOC Plan review, proven to be as shortsighted and unimaginative as he has in the past. He is neither an engineer, nor computer literate, however, he should understand that there is no need to waste time or money distributing minutes by fax or conventional mail. We live in an age where the speed of information retrieval is important to accomplish one goal and immediately approach the next. Minutes approval should occur within days not weeks. Ron Hamburger's comments, as aptly pointed out by Bill Cain, represent an individual out of touch with the current financial state of his professional organization. I certainly would not be in favor of paying more fees' to support Hamburgers jetting from one city or country to another. Mel Slaysman stated; "I don't know if Bill Allen meant his comments to be, but I took them to be very patronizing, as if comments or input from "non members" is somehow of less value than comments by "members". His comments of the membership being non restricted and the "especially since the organization started letting CEs to vote", I feel, is an example of this." I agree with Mel, since Bill's Comment about CE members is as callus as they come. It has been my understanding that Bill and I finally agreed upon a possible solution to the CE & SE problem, but that the issue was not actually with CE's who could prove competency in the field of structural engineering. I sincerely doubt that those engineers, who Mr. Allen has a problem with, are members of SEA. Therefore, his comments are meant to incite rather than be constructive. The SEAOC membership is very closely split between members SE and members CE. I don't think that there is any greater percentage (within say 10%) of one or the other representing the volunteers that sit on SEAOC committees and develop our methodologies and codes. My only strong opinion is that as SEAOC moves to form a strong state office at the expense of the local representation, or the vote of the membership, they risk the financial support that originate with member dues. I don't think SEAOC is that financially strong to challenge it's membership. Dennis S. Wish PE -----Original Message----- From: Bill Allen, S.E. [mailto:bill(--nospam--at)allendesigns.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 10:14 AM To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Subject: RE: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC To clarify, I am not suggesting replacing or redesigning the content or purpose of this listserv. I am merely suggesting a method by which SEAOC business can be conducted more effectively (in addition to not in replace of the existing listserv). Certainly I am not suggesting "closing any doors". In fact, I would like to open them. As I have stated previously, committee meetings are not being posted to the SEAOC website so only a few members are aware of the committee developments. Rick Ranous stated that meeting minutes are not reviewed and approved until the next meeting but, if they were kept in electronic form, they would be available immediately. Certainly, issues pertaining to the general structural engineering profession should remain open and available to as many participants as possible. Further, how many times have I been "flamed" for bringing up non-techno topics suggesting that I should present these topics in another forum? I believe 'blasphemous' (look it up) is a little strong when you state: "It seems blasphemous to think that only regional or local SEA members should be allowed to contribute to the creation of codes and methodologies that are used by the entire profession. Contribution need not have affiliations attached to the to be considered." How are the contributions made now? Regards, Bill Allen -----Original Message----- From: Dennis S. Wish [mailto:wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 9:46 AM To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Subject: RE: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC Bills opinions are his own. As one of the originators of this list (past chairman and member of the SEAOSC Computer Applications Committee and a member of SEAOC CAC) my opinions are not in agreement with Bill's. Please read the comments I made to Rick Raneous and Fred Turners posts entitled " Re: SEAOSC Board Inquiry from Warren" and I think you will understand where I, for one, anticipated the direction of the list and web to take. I strongly believe that SEA overshadows this List and need only be given merit for the creation of these tools - not as a proponent for any political or regional platform. This is disturbing to me since the creation of this list was intended to be a "gift" with no strings attached, to the entire engineering community. It was further intended to promote and create a unity among globally located engineers. If SEA (any chapter, state or national level) wishes to use these tools for their work, they may do so and private lists can be accommodated. However, I personally feel that if the work is related to IBC issues, the opinions of any list participant is equally important. It seems blasphemous to think that only regional or local SEA members should be allowed to contribute to the creation of codes and methodologies that are used by the entire profession. Contribution need not have affiliations attached to the to be considered. I also believe that it is detrimental to the future of this list if any one participant believes that he or she is simply a guest. This may be the reason why we have so few new discussions or comments from outside the California area. The list is a virtual device, not a physical asset. There are no guests or residents, only those who use it to communicate. There are no restrictions to it's use (other than the normal moral and ethical issues). At the very least, if the issue of affiliation is important, this list should be used by individuals with other affiliations to help unite a very fragmented professional community. Dennis Wish PE -----Original Message----- From: MJSLAYSMAN(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:MJSLAYSMAN(--nospam--at)aol.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 8:11 AM To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Subject: Re: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC I would like to thank Pat Nickel for his support on non members' contributions to the server. I welcome this forum for its exchange of ideas technical, political and ethical. I would respectfully ask if there is private bussiness within SEAoC to be conducted by board members and not to be public. Why don't the board members conduct it privately. I for one generally do not comment on internal politics or policies, these sould be set by the administration under the guidelines set by the membership. I don't know if Bill Allen meant his comments to be, but I took them to be very patronizing, as if comments or input from "non members" is somehow of less value than comments by "members". His comments of the membership being non resitricted and the "espicially since the organization started letting CEs to vote", I feel, is an example of this. I realize that as non members of SEAoC we are invited guests, however, invited guests should be treated with respect and they may even have something of value to contribute. Roger Turk, I know has been very active in SEAoA at Chapter, State and Committee levels. I have served on the Board of Directors of SEAoA, been a past president of SEAoA , and served on several committes. Judging from what I have seen of some of the people that visit and comment on this server Roger and I are far from unique. With this all said maybe the best thing is to take Bill up on his invitation to join SEAoC. Bill, as a registered SE in Ca. what would my status be? Respectfully and thank you for letting me vent. Mel Slaysman
- RE: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC
- From: Bill Allen, S.E.
- RE: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC
- Prev by Subject: Re: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC
- Next by Subject: Re: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC
- Previous by thread: RE: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC
- Next by thread: Re: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC