Sorry about that. Last June was a tremendous eye-opener for me- so many people putting forth so much effort for the sake of the industry while I sit around bitching about a few things with my I-phone. It's too late for me to do much, and probably just as well since I struggle to understand the Standards, so I should not have a hand in writing them. And I am in no way the Lobbyist type. My greatest enjoyment is watching a more perfect 13 being formed, and that is why I felt crushed by the 8" max gap width news. If it gets NITMAM'd though we won't even have that, but if it goes through it will be almost impossible to change. A dilemma because the future of 13 will involve more testing and modeling, but what's the use if ultra conservative TC members throw everything that has to do with fewer sprinklers right out the window by tweaking a definition in chapter 3? Thanks Tom, Brad
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
