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

RE: Seismic Design Manual - Vol. 2.

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The volunteer's lament once again. Stop it!

No, it didn't have to be produced "fast". Just started sooner. How long
between the publication of the 1997 UBC and it's adoption? 2 years, right?
That should have been plenty of time (actually 18 months so that we could
have been familiar with it before the code took effect). If not, shame on

Volunteer or not, those doing the work must be accountable particularly if
ICBO is going to charge us for the crappy publication.

Yes, make sure it is properly checked, but do it in a timely manner.

Yes, it's a daunting task to produce this document on one's own time but,
once undertaken, shouldn't those responsible take the responsibility for
timeliness and quality? If not, find someone who will, or not do it at all.

How difficult of a concept is THAT?

Next, I want to know who it was who deleted the off year amendment process
to the UBC. Yes, I admit the code authors are NOT gods and are not perfect.
So, there should be opportunities to correct mistakes. For the first time I
know of, the 1997 edition is without that process.

FWIW, my complaint is that the SDM Vol. 1 was NOT published in a timely
manner NOR was it checked thoroughly for errors.

O for 2.

ICBO should send new Vol 1s which incorporates the errata and take back the
first edition.


Bill Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)
Laguna Niguel, CA

||-----Original Message-----
||From: Constantine Shuhaibar [mailto:csh(--nospam--at)]
||Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 2:17 PM
||To: seaint(--nospam--at)
||Subject: Re: Seismic Design Manual - Vol. 2.
||I don't mean to be cynical, but it is pretty ironic. One guy
||complains about the Seismic Design Manual for the 1997 UBC
||not being published in a timely manner, accompanied with
||statewide seminars. The other guy complains about too many
||errors and the fact that it might be better to hold off on
||releasing a document until it is properly checked using a
||consensus approach.
||So basically, the documnet should be produced fast with no
||errors and no ommissions and at no cost (volunteer effort).
||Sounds like any structural design - from a developer's point
||of view (or his/her dreams!)
||I apologize, but I could not resist.