Right on Tom. Just attending the NFPA C and E
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 2:19 AM, Tom Scheidel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Great comments and absolute truth. When I attended my first delegate session > about 10 years ago, I was sure that I'd loose my mind going through the 36 > inches of various manuals in foreign comment numbers and contentions during > testimony. Voting with the committee or voting your true feelings. Serve > the subject or represent your organization. > > After being in a couple technical committees is and voting a couple cycles, I > assure you it is rewarding professionally, personally, and makes the process > work. > > There are the highs of getting the right result that is truly what the field > wants and needs. There are the lows of the "one-trick-ponies" flying into > town to make one self-serving vote and race back to corporate. But that's > the process we own. > > The NFPA codes are flawed and the best out there. So it's now being adopted > straight from the books in other countries, as their National Code, where I > find myself. > > Get to the meetings and sip from the springs of this process. Just the > dialogue during the voting process and the info shared in discourse will > increase your knowledge about why things are the way they are. It's well > worth the business expense and time investment. > > Tom > > Also at [email protected] > 974-6654-5839 > > Tom Scheidel > [email protected] > www.cms911.com (New Immediate Jeopardy Q&A) > 817-456-6238 > Scheidel & Associates, Inc > > >> On Sep 20, 2014, at 07:23, John Denhardt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Very we'll said Steve. Could not agree more. Get involved is the bottom >> line. It makes you stay current and you see what is the intent of the >> standard. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Sep 20, 2014, at 12:20 AM, "Steve Leyton" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Kidding aside, committee members are most familiar with phasing and >>> contextual issues - for most standards, in any given cycle at least half >>> and sometimes 2/3 of the proposals are what we refer to as editorial or >>> clean-up. NFPA 14 was a formatting mess when I got on and we've >>> completely overhauled it in 4 cycles, intentionally drawing out the >>> reorganization so we could get stuff into the sections where they belonged. >>> This extended to the definitions, chapterization ... the whole standard >>> was considered new in 2007. >>> >>> You have to also remember that most committees include members who serve >>> that committee because they are especially expert and/or interested in that >>> topic. Who better to propose to that standard? There's no conflict of >>> interest in that the proposals and committee actions are available for >>> public review and comment - the process is pretty transparent and as Roland >>> explained, there's a Spanish Inquisition at the end for those who don't >>> think the consensus process was truly served. >>> >>> I have said this hundreds of times over the last few years: "Don't like >>> it? Change it! Make a proposal, make a comment, get involved in the >>> process." How many people reading this have been to the annual NFPA Life >>> Safety Conference? How many stayed for the code hearing? You know what >>> they say about government, right? People generally get the government >>> they deserve. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of Brad Casterline >>> Sent: Fri 9/19/2014 9:15 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Formality question >>> >>> It just seems like a conflict of interest, which is fine for my >>> government, I just wouldn't want it in my 13, 14, 20, or 24 >>> >>>> On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> And you forget you are one of the heavy lifters and think you can spot >>>> with one hand and drink wid the other? >>>> >>>>> On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:48 PM, "Steve Leyton" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Because most of us drink so much after the meetings we lose track of >>>>> what's already on the docket. >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Brad Casterline >>>>> <[email protected]> </div><div>Date:09/19/2014 8:35 PM >>>>> (GMT-08:00) </div><div>To: [email protected] >>>>> </div><div>Subject: Formality question </div><div> >>>>> </div>Why do Technical Committee Members submit Public Input? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Brad Casterline >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
