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

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

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Rick, I appreciate your comments but there is another side to the coin. I do 
not live close enough to SEAOSC to participate in committee meetings. Shafat 
and I worked hard to establish a Virtual Association including tools such as 
the List and Website which were intended for Committees to use. It was the 
intention of the SEAOSC board of directors that the Virtual Community would 
provide a source for drafts, minutes and references used by committee's in 
their work. 

Almost three years later, the webpages for committee's like seismology are 
empty. If the information or at least a link to the information is not made 
available to professional engineers who can not physically attend meetings, 
then how are we suppose to evaluate them and participate in our profession?

One way is to join every professional orgainzation involved such as ICBO, 
ASCE, NSPE, LGSEA ad infinitum. Few of us have the financial resources to do 
this. This is one of the major reasons why engineers who are not living in a 
metropolitan area, close to a professional chapter, do not support these 
organizations. They feel isolated and cut off of the work - essentially their 
hands are tied and they have no voice in the issues.

Had Frank McClure not mentioned the ASCE/FEMA 273 on the Degenkolb website, I 
would not be aware of the document or its significance to our profession. 
Many of us have little if any time to sort through the tons of documents that 
we should be aware of. However we do have a means to create a virtual library 
of documentation for our perusal. The problem is that we refuse to devote the 
energy to develope the resource and it sits unused.

I'm refering to the SEA Websites. As I pointed out in my post - the Website 
resources have been in place for over three years. Every SEA chapter (and 
state) in Califonia (and many outside California) have a structured site with 
provisions to upload and archive any electronic information that a committee 
produces. 

Let's be hones - the documents that we refer to are not written on a manual 
typewriter - they are produced by computer programs - yet not one of the 
these documents has been submitted to SEAINT for posting on any of the 
Seismology Committee websites.  

I think it is wrong to invite engineers to participate and not allow them to 
do so using the Internet tools. It's wrong to critize and engineer who wishes 
to participate but does not have the resouces to be physically involved. I 
think it is wrong to create codes in an electronic day and age and not 
provide easy acess to engineers who want to be involved.  I also think that 
it is wrong to assume that SEAINT is a social club for engineers and not to 
recognize the strengths that can be developed from the tools provided.

Rick, the problem is not those of us on the List who have opinions, it's that 
our opinions have no reasonable channel to those who are in a position to 
evalutate them. 

Before we critize the professional community as being apathetic, we need to 
connect the links and give them greater accessiblity to information. We need 
cooperation from both sides and we are not currently getting it.

Dennis S. Wish PE


In a message dated 6/1/99 12:01:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)fluordaniel.com writes:

<<      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
  >>