AegisFPE
Silver Member
Re: Vote on establishing an Association
Yes, in principle.
I agree with the principle to continue to foster discussion among various code users through an independent group that would maintain an independent site, which would be anticipated to promote and facilitate a similar online environment as that which many of us experienced prior to this week through the ICC. Though we may agree that an independent group is appropriate, branding and identifying that group so that membership and/or participation in the group is not objectionable to those who are members or participants (there seems to be a consensus that there is value in enabling participation by non-members). I think it is also important to emphasize that the group is not Anti-ICC or Anti-NFPA, but rather seeking to provide another avenue of professional development, networking, and sharing of opinions, interpretations and experiences related to the application and enforcement of various code provisions.
I understand that a significant purpose, maybe the purpose, of the group is to maintain an electronic bulletin board. There also seems to be general agreement that the bb must be extremely user friendly, able to be searched, regulated for inappropriate content while facilitating professional discussions of potentially controversial and adverse opinions - for which an independent organization makes a lot of sense.
This has the potential to be even more valuable, not only encompassing public and private entities, but also providing more opportunity for spanning the ICC - NFPA chasm, to include users of both authoring agencies and associated referenced standards which are encountered through the administration and application of local codes and ordinances, and for the group to develop proposed code amendments based on involvement of a wider cross-section of users, rather than a specific user group. Such a group would definitely be worth a nominal membership fee in order to provide for the maintenance and operation of the bb.
Therefore, it is essential to recognize that in naming the group, because membership could likely include public employees, private designers, owners, product reps, and others, the name should appropriately reflect this mix, or not deter involvement from those who may otherwise not perceive themselves to fall within the purview of the title of the organization.
Therefore, I would tend toward a more generic name, such as CSA (Codes and Standards Association) or ICSUG (Independent Code and Standards Users Group), for which incidentally http://www.CSAssociation.org and http://www.ICSUG.org appear to be available.
Yes, in principle.
I agree with the principle to continue to foster discussion among various code users through an independent group that would maintain an independent site, which would be anticipated to promote and facilitate a similar online environment as that which many of us experienced prior to this week through the ICC. Though we may agree that an independent group is appropriate, branding and identifying that group so that membership and/or participation in the group is not objectionable to those who are members or participants (there seems to be a consensus that there is value in enabling participation by non-members). I think it is also important to emphasize that the group is not Anti-ICC or Anti-NFPA, but rather seeking to provide another avenue of professional development, networking, and sharing of opinions, interpretations and experiences related to the application and enforcement of various code provisions.
I understand that a significant purpose, maybe the purpose, of the group is to maintain an electronic bulletin board. There also seems to be general agreement that the bb must be extremely user friendly, able to be searched, regulated for inappropriate content while facilitating professional discussions of potentially controversial and adverse opinions - for which an independent organization makes a lot of sense.
This has the potential to be even more valuable, not only encompassing public and private entities, but also providing more opportunity for spanning the ICC - NFPA chasm, to include users of both authoring agencies and associated referenced standards which are encountered through the administration and application of local codes and ordinances, and for the group to develop proposed code amendments based on involvement of a wider cross-section of users, rather than a specific user group. Such a group would definitely be worth a nominal membership fee in order to provide for the maintenance and operation of the bb.
Therefore, it is essential to recognize that in naming the group, because membership could likely include public employees, private designers, owners, product reps, and others, the name should appropriately reflect this mix, or not deter involvement from those who may otherwise not perceive themselves to fall within the purview of the title of the organization.
Therefore, I would tend toward a more generic name, such as CSA (Codes and Standards Association) or ICSUG (Independent Code and Standards Users Group), for which incidentally http://www.CSAssociation.org and http://www.ICSUG.org appear to be available.
