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

RE: ACI 355.2

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
> > I would invite those interested in
> exploring the technical issues involved in ACI 355.2 to contact me
> personally, and to come to the next meeting of ACI Committee 355, which
> will take place on March 25, 2001, in conjunction with the ACI Convention
> in Philadelphia. <

Peter (and others), what I want to know is why it is necessary to attend
contact Richard Klingner privately to explore the technical issues. This has
been similar to comments arising from other code issues. While I am not
judging the importance of the change until I have more information, I do
resent providing substantiation of the controversial issues privately rather
to the professional community.
As another engineer whose comments I respect wrote me privately, there are
reasons to maintain restriction as to who acts as a spokesperson for
committees and organizations such as ACI. My main complain is when there
ends up being no spokesperson and it is believed that since there is no
spokesperson, it is better not to respond to the questions publicly. I
disagree because second hand information can be misinterpreted.

The second issue is that the majority of those interested in the bottom-line
issues are not able to attend the ACI Convention in Philadelphia and should
not have to just to learn ACI's position or justification as to why the
issues were handled the way they were and why Anchor manufactures may be
wrong the ACI right. For the moment the ACI is asking the professional
community to "trust" them and to take the leap of faith that their actions
are justified without presenting the information in a compelling argument
with appropriate evidence to justify their actions.

I don't like the way this is handled even if ACI has a valid point to make.
If they can't satisfy the professional communities justification for the
manner in which this issue was handled, they will lose a lot of respect and
faith of professionals who are in practice. This is not the way to work with
a professional community.

I've been reprimanded privately for some of my inflammatory comments on this
subject an the criticism I've made to some of the SEA committee work. Those
who know my intention will understand that my interest is not to destroy
relationships with our professional organizations, but to alert policy
makers of the dissatisfaction that grows in the professional community when
the loop for developmental information remains discontinuous until a final
decision has to be made. There is so much effort placed on moving ahead,
that little is being done to improve upon the problems that still exist from
the past and are not likely to change in future code cycles.

Consider this constructive criticism and my comments as those of a
representative of the this individual professional who has concerns and is
not very happy with the restrictions which policy makers make that creates
difficulty for those who can not attend physical committees from becoming
involved.

Finally, to set the record straight, it was never my intention to replace
physical committee work with virtual committee. It is necessary -
important - to use Internet technology in an intelligent manner so as to do
much of the work prior to the physical meeting and this can be done
virtually for much less cost to dues paying members than by physical
meetings. So far, the only "virtual" means which are being used in
committees are not accessible to the professional community but only to
established committee members and in my opinion, this is not only wrong, but
prevents knowledgeable professionals who wish to contribute from doing so.

Dennis S. Wish, PE