100 Raceway.

[jusme123]

I really haven't seen any of your proposals that I think actually improve the code for the typical user. Sure there are technical issues with the wording, but I haven't seen any, so far, that makes any real difference, at least to me, in the understanding of the code rule in question.

I know that if I was on a CMP, I would just mark all of your proposals as reject without even looking at them. Yes, I am aware that the rules for committee members would not permit me to do that, but I know that I would.


Do the rules for writing a consensus standard permit that type of editing by the NFPA itself? Sometimes what appears, as first look, to be a simple editorial change, actually changes the meaning of the code section.

...that's why you have no business in becoming a CMP member. Your comments are a little harsh, considering he is only submitting corrections he believes should be made to the NEC

 

[George Stolz]

As a code user, I use the ROPs and ROCs to try to determine intent of questionable sections. I don't have to examine each of these proposals and decide on their merit, but I find repeated quibbling over extreme minutiae to be very annoying when looking through the ROPs and ROCs.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...that's why you have no business in becoming a CMP member. Your comments are a little harsh, considering he is only submitting corrections he believes should be made to the NEC

I am aware that that already happens on some of the panels, based on feedback I received from insiders when I submitted a significant number of proposals a number of cycles ago.

The CMP members are volunteer members and have to invest a lot of their time to make the system work, a large amount of proposals that have no real value just wastes the panel member's time. There are plenty of things that really need fixing and could make a real impact on the use of the that he could address if he wanted to.

Look at the comment in post #6 from a former CMP member.