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

Re: 1997 UBC How to request a REVISION

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 5/15/99 8:10:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Byainc(--nospam--at)aol.com 
writes:

<< If you are interested in what goes into the future codes I suggest you get 
 involved by reviewing the 2000 IBC and proposing code changes for the 2003 
 IBC which we will probably use in 2005!  >>

Excuse me gentlemen and ladies. Have I been holucinating for the last three 
or four weeks or have we literally discussed this issue into the ground. 
I'm being facitious. My point is that why must we be redundant when those who 
can make change are already informed of our concerns with the past and 
present code related to rigid diaphragm analysis for residential structures.

Although Ben is well intended and suggests something we should do, the fact 
remains that SEAOC has acknowledged their understanding of our concerns and 
gave us some assurance that the issues would be addressed.

I would hate to think that we must go through the formal steps of submitting 
specific comments for the IBC in order to reactivate the same concern that we 
show for the existing and previous codes.

I think that we should expect this issue to be brought up and discussed in 
each of the approriate committees for the IBC without further hounding on our 
behalf. Hopefully, one of you fine people will assure us that this issue will 
not be forgotten and will follow it's natural evolution up the code cycles 
regardless of who the publisher is (and I'm sure it will be a close relative 
of ICBO).

Possibly Ron Hamburger can offer this assurance to us. If necessary, I will 
accumulate the posts from the last few weeks, compile them and email them to 
Ron or whomever he suggests.

I expect this issue to progress toward a resolution at this point - not fade 
out into obscurity.

Respectfully,
Dennis Wish PE