- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
Anyone begin writing their new proposals yet? I have about 20 ideas but nothing written as of yet. Has anyone used the online submission form?
Proposals for Next Cycle
- Thread starter infinity
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
I haven't started writing either. Remember that if you don't use the online submission system, you have to have your "public inputs" in about a month earlier than the normal deadline.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Off topic rant.
This changing names of the process really irks me. To me it is a sign of an organization that is bloated and has so many man hours available it looks for things to fix that are not broken.
It certainly did not help the process of letting anyone submit 'input' it will only serve to exclude people that do not follow each and every action of the NFPA.
Done.
HackElectric
Senior Member
- Location
- NJ
I've written all of my proposed NEC changes across 4 or 5 different forums. Hopefully someone will see them and do the right thing.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
I submitted one and have another one ready. I didn't like the online system and I heard that this is the last year for sending it in an email or snail mail. Next cycle all submission must be online.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
I would like to undertake a campaign with the help of the forum to do an all-out blitz on the NEC this cycle, using random names, to simplify the NEC. Delete extraneous or confusing language.
I got into a heated argument with Mike Holt, Ryan Jackson and Eric Stromberg recently when I admitted to advocating the deletion of the text and table to 310.15(B)(7) last cycle. Ryan and Mike were incensed that a simple, easy to (ab-)use table had been replaced with the text we have in 2014. Ryan's case was that we, and the NFPA, were getting a little too carried away with pleasing the code geeks. After the discussion I briefly had a vision of a million proposals, from a million different sources, converging on them and forcing them to take a look at each idea as if it were fresh.
Then I slept a bit and thought better of suggesting it until now.
I got into a heated argument with Mike Holt, Ryan Jackson and Eric Stromberg recently when I admitted to advocating the deletion of the text and table to 310.15(B)(7) last cycle. Ryan and Mike were incensed that a simple, easy to (ab-)use table had been replaced with the text we have in 2014. Ryan's case was that we, and the NFPA, were getting a little too carried away with pleasing the code geeks. After the discussion I briefly had a vision of a million proposals, from a million different sources, converging on them and forcing them to take a look at each idea as if it were fresh.
Then I slept a bit and thought better of suggesting it until now.
Last edited:
- Occupation
- Licensed Electrician
If I thought it would help I could muster up the energy to participate in your campaign, however, like Bob said there doesn't seem to be any real interest in making the code better for those that have to use it.
I find it interesting that you got into an argument with Ryan about pleasing code geeks. Wasn't it his proposal that makes us have to use running boards in crawl spaces on the basis that it makes the code more consistent since running boards are required in basements? What a useless piece of garbage that change was.
Don't get me started on what was done to 310. I keep my '05 code book around just so I don't have to use a later edition.
I think you are correct.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
I agree...it really appears to me that it will be much more difficult to track the "proposed" changes and make comments on them with the new system.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
That would be atleast half of the code book
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
From what I gather many of us are frustrated with the direction that the NFPA is taking. If I may ask what are the specific problems with the online system? In my case it should be an improvement over the 2014 cycle.
Last code cycle I had to hand write all of my proposals from memory and fax them because we had lost power in an ice storm and had to go live with relatives for a week. In doing so I had no access to my computer which contained the proposals. :slaphead:
Last code cycle I had to hand write all of my proposals from memory and fax them because we had lost power in an ice storm and had to go live with relatives for a week. In doing so I had no access to my computer which contained the proposals. :slaphead:
I have submitted two out of three I started.
I ended up deleting the first before submitting. It needed refined and likely some supporting graphics (and not enough time to do that at present). While the change I had in mind had merit, it also had potential for abuse... so I decide not to submit.
I don't have any complaints about the online submission method. I like that one can start the proposal... errrrr.... "input" and refine later before actually submitting it. I also believe more people will offer "input" with this method being available.
I ended up deleting the first before submitting. It needed refined and likely some supporting graphics (and not enough time to do that at present). While the change I had in mind had merit, it also had potential for abuse... so I decide not to submit.
I don't have any complaints about the online submission method. I like that one can start the proposal... errrrr.... "input" and refine later before actually submitting it. I also believe more people will offer "input" with this method being available.
fmtjfw
Senior Member
- Location
- Fairmont, WV, USA
Is it progress?
Is it progress?
The online submission system is, no doubt, designed to reduce the workload of NFPA staff. For 2011 I emailed all my proposals in and, eventually, bought Microsoft Word, so that they could copy my submissions rather than retype them. Also the new system probably automatically sorts the submissions by CMP.
However the online submission systems means that I need to create three different formats:
HTML: original type in (easy way to get strike-thru, underline, bold, italic)
Forum Format: (no strike-thru / using Red) versus <b> in HTML ...
NFPA Submission: "live" edit of online text.
I'll also do computer automated conversion of the HTML to PDF for submission through IAEI.
I could probably automate HTML to Forum Format come to think of it.
Is it progress?
The online submission system is, no doubt, designed to reduce the workload of NFPA staff. For 2011 I emailed all my proposals in and, eventually, bought Microsoft Word, so that they could copy my submissions rather than retype them. Also the new system probably automatically sorts the submissions by CMP.
However the online submission systems means that I need to create three different formats:
HTML: original type in (easy way to get strike-thru, underline, bold, italic)
Forum Format: (no strike-thru / using Red) versus <b> in HTML ...
NFPA Submission: "live" edit of online text.
I'll also do computer automated conversion of the HTML to PDF for submission through IAEI.
I could probably automate HTML to Forum Format come to think of it.
fmtjfw
Senior Member
- Location
- Fairmont, WV, USA
My goals
My goals
1) substantive changes for safety
2) clarity, remove archaic, unenforceable, etc. language
3) remove unnecessary repeated text (prime example: the two places that have essentially identical paragraphs defining markings for DC feeders and branch circuits).
4) use of the same text for the same rule when short and repeated in numerous locations.
5) uniformity: why are not all disconnects created equal?
6) "everything" text: such as "metallic and nonmetallic".
7) apply the NEC Style Manual to the NEC.
8) more use of tables or lists instead of dense paragraphs.
I'm sort of treating the Code as I would a software spec. looking for precision and no internal contradictions.
My goals
1) substantive changes for safety
2) clarity, remove archaic, unenforceable, etc. language
3) remove unnecessary repeated text (prime example: the two places that have essentially identical paragraphs defining markings for DC feeders and branch circuits).
4) use of the same text for the same rule when short and repeated in numerous locations.
5) uniformity: why are not all disconnects created equal?
6) "everything" text: such as "metallic and nonmetallic".
7) apply the NEC Style Manual to the NEC.
8) more use of tables or lists instead of dense paragraphs.
I'm sort of treating the Code as I would a software spec. looking for precision and no internal contradictions.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
Add this:
9)Remove all instances where the code becomes a design manual in conflict with 90.1(C).
9)Remove all instances where the code becomes a design manual in conflict with 90.1(C).
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
I suppose that you could put your image on a hosting site and then include a text (non-clickable) link to it in your submitted text. That way, even though it might not display it could at least be consulted by reviewers.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
I also get this error message and about 8 others that I must click thru--- I get it both in IE and chrome
Last edited:
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
All that I can say to that, based on the error message, is that they either have someone writing really bad HTML/XML code or they are only testing with quirky browsers like obsolete versions of Internet Exploder.
No (not yet?).
When I click Revise..., Next, and Next, the third page is:
A message box pops up:
I gave up trying to use Chrome. IE11 works good for me.
- Status