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

RE: ACI 355.2

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Mark,
Why not summarize both sides of the argument for us as most of us are only
able to read what the Anchor manufacturers argument has been. ACI has not,
as I am able to tell, been willing to post information discussion the
changes (which the Anchor companies have posted in PDF format) and their
rationalization for the sudden change.

As I mentioned, I have separated the actions from the importance of the
changes made. Why not fill the professional community in on the arguments
from both sides? I know this means taking the time to write it up, but
perhaps you can provide an unbiased description of the issues of both sides
of the argument and allow the professional community to decide if the manner
in which it was handled was justified.

I would appreciate it!

Dennis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Gilligan [mailto:MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 11:34 AM
> To: INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: ACI 355.2
>
>
> If you have a problem with the lack of information from ACI and others on
> the subject of ACI 355.2 then I think that you should look to ITW
> Ramset/Redhead who have created an atmosphere of fear as a result of their
> use of litigation to influence the standards writing process.
>
> If the manufacturers of mechanical fasteners wish to influence
> our opinions
> they should provide unbiased technical information in a easily accessible
> form.  So far I have seen little basic data from either side.
>
>
> Mark Gilligan
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>  Message text written by INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> >
> > > 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
>
>
>