• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

ICC Forum

I think their only hope now is to quietly made their website usable including some major changes to the forum without trumpeting their plans or advertising their goof-ups.
Click to expand...
I hope not.

This will be a long range effort to win back some respect and customers.
Click to expand...
I hope not.

Just do it, stop talking about it. People WILL notice, I promise
Click to expand...
I hope not.
 
I just wanted to say I had the pleasure trying to use the ICC website today. We needed a couple of books and I thought the member price would be cheaper than other sources. Only took three tries to log on, navigating from page to page was slower than my first old dial up connection, and then I couldn't find the books I wanted due to the way the store is laid out.

Finally quit and ordered them off amazon. I see real progress here.

And the slowness wasn't my connection, everything else has been running at a nice fast speed today, including this website.
 
texas transplant said:
I just wanted to say I had the pleasure trying to use the ICC website today. We needed a couple of books and I thought the member price would be cheaper than other sources. Only took three tries to log on, navigating from page to page was slower than my first old dial up connection, and then I couldn't find the books I wanted due to the way the store is laid out.Finally quit and ordered them off amazon. I see real progress here.

And the slowness wasn't my connection, everything else has been running at a nice fast speed today, including this website.
Click to expand...
I completely agree as I was doing the exact same thing with the same results. Slow as dirt and couldn't find what I was looking for quickly.
 
texasbo said:
Replacement by an organization that truly represents the membership.
Click to expand...
What diff does it make if ICC changes into an organization that truly reps the membership, or "someone" builds a whole new organization from scratch that does the same thing? Or, do you have an organization already in mind?
 
Don't have one in mind, but feel the culture of ICC is way too far gone to ever return to adequately represent the membership.

ICBO represented the membership well, and my colleagues under SBCCI felt they did too. I'm sure BOCA was the same. I'm not lost in the past, but I don't think it's too much to ask for a professional organization that truly represents it's members. ICC doesn't and can't. They've gone way to far to turn back. They must go away.
 
Jeff: they are having problems funding them selves and besides this BB is a black eye to them. They would like nothing better then to see us fail.

I am not sure if I should start a new thread or just hijack this one and later I will add to what Texasbo said regarding ICC. Yankee you raise an interesting point regarding does it matter if ICC fails.
 
The only problem I can see with the ICC failing is the Federal Government might decide to step in and decide they should do a "National Building Code".

If we want things to be really screwed up that is the best path to make it happen. :(
 
texas transplant said:
The only problem I can see with the ICC failing is the Federal Government might decide to step in and decide they should do a "National Building Code".If we want things to be really screwed up that is the best path to make it happen. :(
Click to expand...
Ya, that's been a concern for years. However, as ICC loses direction and the confidence of its membership, there will be interest from those who wish to replace it. I predict there will be viable options popping up in the future.
 
texasbo said:
Ya, that's been a concern for years. However, as ICC loses direction and the confidence of its membership, there will be interest from those who wish to replace it. I predict there will be viable options popping up in the future.
Click to expand...
The most efficient thing to do would be to hijack the infrastructure of the dying ICC and rebuild it to suit . . . not start from scratch.
 
"Post Script: A road apple out of the south bound end of a north bound horse has more of direction then the icc."

They (the cow) have lost touch with "their" membership. Or have they? Green, energy, & the sprinkler coalition seem to be #1 on the radar these days.

Question: Ever wonder how long it will take the cow to hack this site???

 
jpranch said:
"Post Script: A road apple out of the south bound end of a north bound horse has more of direction then the icc."They (the cow) have lost touch with "their" membership. Or have they? Green, energy, & the sprinkler coalition seem to be #1 on the radar these days.

Question: Ever wonder how long it will take the cow to hack this site???

Click to expand...
I think you're exactly right. What is now their membership, and what was once their membership are two very different things.

And the root of most of the problems.
 
Yankee said:
The most efficient thing to do would be to hijack the infrastructure of the dying ICC and rebuild it to suit . . . not start from scratch.
Click to expand...
I would agree in principle, but is there enough of the infrastructure worth saving? The original intent of combining the legacy code groups into a single entity was a good idea. If it had to continued to function as an organization for code professionals, with active but limited input and association of special interests, I would be ok with that. Unfortunately, it's been transformed beyond all recognition from the effective professional association that it once was.

In addition, saving the "bones" would send a message of tacit approval of at least part of what we have now. Speaking for myself, I would not want to send that message. I am in favor of cutting out the cancer entirely.
 
texasbo said:
I would agree in principle, but is there enough of the infrastructure worth saving? The original intent of combining the legacy code groups into a single entity was a good idea. If it had to continued to function as an organization for code professionals, with active but limited input and association of special interests, I would be ok with that. Unfortunately, it's been transformed beyond all recognition from the effective professional association that it once was. In addition, saving the "bones" would send a message of tacit approval of at least part of what we have now. Speaking for myself, I would not want to send that message. I am in favor of cutting out the cancer entirely.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that changing the voting method/privilages and code development hearings somewhat would fix things a good deal. And getting the beautiful people off the website.
 
I hate to be the party pooper here but folks in reality the ICC is here to stay! It is too big of an organization and the folks that are part of the group that thinks they will not survive are just a very small part of ICC. It's like spitting in the ocean. You know you made a difference but the amount you contributed to the ocean isn't even seen. Yes we can make our voices heard but are they falling on deaf ears?
 
Yankee: If you'll throw in a complete change of management, and firing every single individual responsible for their website, and a link to this forum instead of dreaming up their own abortion, I'll give it a 30 day trial.

Mule: Maybe, maybe not. Do you know the financial status of ICC? Do you not think that many members of ICC are as fed up as some of the members here? Do you think the group here is just a bunch of eccentric renegades? I have worked hard to help elect board members who will effect change, and I think if enough board members hear the same thing, there may be significant changes, at the very least. There are other organizations that are already willing to step in, and there will be others, and I am not beyond considering them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jobsaver said:
An ICC codebook is only as good as its next adoption. It seems to me a likely enough scenario that a state government or two will eventually opt out, and that others will follow.
Click to expand...
Frankly I am with Mule on this, , ,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top