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

Re[2]: Code Created Malpractice Opportunity-Rigid v.Flexible

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
     Dennis:
     
     I think you may be missing John Shipp's point.  There is a mechanism 
     within SEAOC for all members to provide their input.  You should work 
     with the local seismology committee members, in your case SEAOSC.
     
     Even if you chose not to work within the SEAOSC seismology committee, 
     you could have still submitted proposals to the IBC as an individual.  
     I submitted three IBC proposals as an individual, and guess what?  One 
     of them has passed every step of the way.  The other two, I hope will 
     be considered in the future.
     
     The point is that the list server is an excellent forum for exchanging 
     good ideas, or for testing the water for support of good ideas.  
     However, at some point, the good ideas idea must be turned into a 
     proposal for code modification.  It's not very glamorous; some would 
     even call it grunt work; but volunteers working within the system have 
     been able to make code changes happen.
     
     I would encourage you to build on the excellent contributions you make 
     to this list server and join the code process.  Maybe every one of 
     your ideas won't make it into the code, but even 1 in 3 would be a 
     meaningful contribution to Structural practice.
     
     The Secretariat for Chapter 16 is ICBO.  Contact Susan Dowty 
     (off-line) and see what the options are.  If it is too late for the 
     2000 IBC, find out about the 2001 Supplement.
     
     Rick Drake, SE
     Fluor Daniel, Irvine


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Code Created Malpractice Opportunity-Rigid v.Flexible Di
Author:  Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com at fdinet
Date:    6/1/99 1:38 PM


Chuck,
Many of us are insistent on the issues presented in this thread - every time 
a dissenting opinion comes along, we take the time to address it and, 
hopefully, present compeling facts to support our views. Nothing can be 
accomplished if our comments are discarded or ignored. I would hope that 
comments from those in a position to set policy, like John Shipp, are not 
meant to flatly end the discussion. Establishing a non-yielding policy will 
only suceed in negating the purpose of this list - which is to bring forth 
all sides of an issue and correct that which is inadequate.
     
I caution those, who are in a unique position to make policy, to clearly and 
publically distinguish their personal opinions from what may be perceived as 
establishing a policy or drawing a conclusion from our discussions. 
     
Dennis S. Wish PE