Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Virtual Seismology Committee

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Lynn, 
First a suggestion for this discussion. Please address the comments and 
opinions to the list members. Although I am very involved in the design of 
wood structures and am passionate on the issues that we discussed, I am not 
willing to take the lead on this committee since I am spread so thin by my 
commitment to the List, Website, Online (which is behind one issue) and a few 
other responsiblities I have taken on. I do want to participate, but not in a 
lead position. I was invited to paticiapte on the panel discussion, but many 
of you would have been equally if not more qualified than I. The chair 
position is open and the list will decide who should chair. 

Now, my opinions on your comments:
I agree with you entirely and would hope that you would be willing to take a 
lead if you desire to do so and the others agree.  I think that there should 
be no less than two representatives to allow for representation if one can 
not attend. This should not be difficult since some of the seismology 
members, like Bill Nelson and Doug Thompson are already participating list 
members.

I received a private post that suggested the formation of a possible virtual 
Ad Hoc Committee to be assigned specific tasks rather than form as a 5th 
chapter committee. I think this needs to be considered although I am not in 
favor of this. I believe that we have a large diverse group of participants 
that can become useful resources in most areas of seismology. I also consider 
the use of the virtual community as a form of appeasment so as not to upset 
the balance that already exists. This is probably my personal bias and should 
not prevent open discussion on the formation of an Ad Hoc committee in lieu 
of more active participation. I thought this should be thown out for 
discussion.

One more thing. I do not believe that this discussion should be taken off the 
list. There are some who are participating in seismology and believe that 
this discussion is premature until Seismology has given it their seal of 
approval. I do not agree as the list community represent the membership of 
SEA and other organizations as well as the practicing professional community 
- more so by size and demographics than the members of the seismology 
committee. The core issue is whether to serve the needs of the membership or 
let the membership follow the lead of the committees. I think the postition 
stated by SEAOSC has been to represent the needs of the members before the 
needs of the policy makers.
I hope that we can leave the politics out of the discussion and address the 
real issues of the problems existing in the code methodology.

Sincerely, 
Dennis S. Wish PE


In a message dated 10/6/1999 5:52:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com writes:

<< Dennis-
 I think we should have a least one member of the
 seismology committee be an active participant in the
 virtual committee. 
 
 I would suggest that members submit topics or
 position or recommendation papers to the seismology
 committee for consideration.  The actual topics and
 formation of the topics or papers can be formulated
 in the virtual committee.  A free exchange of ideas,
 exchange of papers and constructive critic would all
 be a part of it. 
 
 Ultimately, one person should be appointed to be in
 charge of each issue.  That person would be 
 responsible to gather comments and present the
 information to the seismology committee.
 
 I am interested in being a part of that committee. 
 I think we should have at LEAST one, possibly 2 face
 to face meetings each year.  Virtual is fine to a
 point, but we should gather together face to face
 occasionally.
 
 Just my initial thoughts.
 
 Lynn >>