meeting room definition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Resistance is futile. We must all conform to PC. Never mind that man behind the curtain. 1984.
Don't forget to remark your white wire and any other handyman rules.
Oh, get off my lawn!
 
Craigv said:
How effective have public comments/input been in shaping the Code? NFPA brags that 4,000+ comments were submitted last cycle...what percentage supported a change, rewording, or new rule? I read comments in this forum that public input is barely used at all, and that recent procedures have made this even worse.

Having said that, I still went out to NFPA's site, logged in, and tried to find where I can submit a comment/input online in 5 minutes. Still looking.
Click to expand...
LOL....you guys kill me. You have windows of time to submit...you missed it. You will get another chance for 2023.

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
 
packersparky said:
And what percentage of the "public inputs" are actually from the public and not the code making panels?

This meeting room receptacle requirements were proposed by a member of the public for the 2014 NEC but was rejected by the code making panel. The code making panel then submitted their own version of 210.71 for the 2017 NEC and it was (of course) accepted.
Click to expand...
If you don't know that then you are unfamiliar to the process. Public Inputs come from the public. But i win no arguments here on this so...its all good.

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
 
MasterTheNEC said:
If you don't know that then you are unfamiliar to the process. Public Inputs come from the public. But i win no arguments here on this so...its all good.

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
Click to expand...
Codes are necessary but they have their problems as well. You don't seem to acknowledge that there are problems and that this code and the process of developing it is perfect. It is not, but it is a compromise that is generally considered as acceptable as it is going to get. There is always room for improvement on just about anything.


I can also understand that there potentially could be a lot of PI's from people that simply aren't that qualified to give a suggestion to this. I don't know what procedures are used to determine what PI's actually get accepted for consideration and what gets thrown out and never even recorded on any official records, there is likely some of those that never go anywhere and never are recorded in any way.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
LOL....you guys kill me. You have windows of time to submit...you missed it. You will get another chance for 2023.

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
Click to expand...

This doesn't answer my question regarding how effective public input is within the process.

I know there's a window. I know the window is closed. But your comment reads as if it wasn't, so someone reading this thread who's unfamiliar with the process might assume they could do as you wrote right now.
 
Craigv said:
This doesn't answer my question regarding how effective public input is within the process.

I know there's a window. I know the window is closed. But your comment reads as if it wasn't, so someone reading this thread who's unfamiliar with the process might assume they could do as you wrote right now.
Click to expand...
My comment is in general. Those that are aware of the process know the windows that are available. As for percentages, sorry I don't track the data but in the 2017 NEC change process there was over 4,000 public inputs I believe....they came from the public and the CMP's simply had to parse them down based on technical substantiation. Do CMP members make changes and sometimes add things..yes..that's what we are there to do.

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
 
kwired said:
Codes are necessary but they have their problems as well. You don't seem to acknowledge that there are problems and that this code and the process of developing it is perfect. It is not, but it is a compromise that is generally considered as acceptable as it is going to get. There is always room for improvement on just about anything.


I can also understand that there potentially could be a lot of PI's from people that simply aren't that qualified to give a suggestion to this. I don't know what procedures are used to determine what PI's actually get accepted for consideration and what gets thrown out and never even recorded on any official records, there is likely some of those that never go anywhere and never are recorded in any way.
Click to expand...
Ummm...you assume alot. I know there are problems otherwise I would not submit the number of PI's and PC's that I do as part of the process.

Where did I say its perfect?....It seems to you that won't acknowledge the work that goes into making such progress. You usually prefer to class the CMP folks as those who have time to kill or that don't actually work anymore..both of which I will just justify a tit for tat about.

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Ummm...you assume alot. I know there are problems otherwise I would not submit the number of PI's and PC's that I do as part of the process.

Where did I say its perfect?....It seems to you that won't acknowledge the work that goes into making such progress. You usually prefer to class the CMP folks as those who have time to kill or that don't actually work anymore..both of which I will just justify a tit for tat about.

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
Click to expand...
I know there is a lot to the process. I may not know every detail but I am not directly involved either, but I do realize any organization as big as this is will have a lot going on no matter what it is that they do.

My reply was just based on what some see when you post things. You come here and act like the code and all that goes with it is the greatest thing ever, and any comments that put anything about it down you seem to shoot down. Nothing wrong with that, that is how things work with such a system. Seemingly good as well as bad input need consideration in making what is more less a public document, standard or whatever you want to call it, as well as keeping the ability to modify said item on the table. Things change, opinions change over time. Such process is also taken advantage of by those with deep pockets to get what they want. Not saying the CMP's are unfairly compensated, just that those with the $$$ can put a lot into ways of convincing CMP's what they want them to see.

Seems the majority of significant code changes are submitted by manufacturers. Is understandable as well, they should be trying to improve safety, but some things that do get put into code sure do appear to have been a result of "lobbying" by the manufacturers to sell more product than they actually increase safety by any significant margin. A lot of stuff has been put into the requirements in the past 30 years that in many people's opinion should be issues for design not safety.

You seem to defend what is in NEC (on this site) no matter what it is or what someone may have to say in opposition to what is printed. What good is PI if those that review the PI ignore anything they "don't want to hear"?
 
kwired said:
I know there is a lot to the process. I may not know every detail but I am not directly involved either, but I do realize any organization as big as this is will have a lot going on no matter what it is that they do.

My reply was just based on what some see when you post things. You come here and act like the code and all that goes with it is the greatest thing ever, and any comments that put anything about it down you seem to shoot down. Nothing wrong with that, that is how things work with such a system. Seemingly good as well as bad input need consideration in making what is more less a public document, standard or whatever you want to call it, as well as keeping the ability to modify said item on the table. Things change, opinions change over time. Such process is also taken advantage of by those with deep pockets to get what they want. Not saying the CMP's are unfairly compensated, just that those with the $$$ can put a lot into ways of convincing CMP's what they want them to see.

Seems the majority of significant code changes are submitted by manufacturers. Is understandable as well, they should be trying to improve safety, but some things that do get put into code sure do appear to have been a result of "lobbying" by the manufacturers to sell more product than they actually increase safety by any significant margin. A lot of stuff has been put into the requirements in the past 30 years that in many people's opinion should be issues for design not safety.

You seem to defend what is in NEC (on this site) no matter what it is or what someone may have to say in opposition to what is printed. What good is PI if those that review the PI ignore anything they "don't want to hear"?
Click to expand...
Oh yeah...that's me alright...Thanks

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Oh yeah...that's me alright...Thanks

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
Click to expand...
Glad you see it that way then:D

There needs to be debate or nothing ever changes, finding medium ground that all involved can agree with is never accomplished, this applies to any public type policies, standards, etc.
 
kwired said:
Glad you see it that way then:D

There needs to be debate or nothing ever changes, finding medium ground that all involved can agree with is never accomplished, this applies to any public type policies, standards, etc.
Click to expand...
Yep..that's me...:)...I never debate sure. What ever ...you folks won't get a rise out of me...lol..

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
 
I am not trying to argue how good or bad this code is. I try to comply to all codes from an unbiased view and assume that there are legitimate reasons for code changes. I do have a question however, and its just for my curiosity.

Why was it decided that provisions needed to be taken to mitigate trip hazards (what triggered this need) and why were certain rooms chosen to require trip hazard mitigation over others?

Again, serious question. I am neutral regarding this code requirement.
 
jeremy.zinkofsky said:
I am not trying to argue how good or bad this code is. I try to comply to all codes from an unbiased view and assume that there are legitimate reasons for code changes. I do have a question however, and its just for my curiosity.

Why was it decided that provisions needed to be taken to mitigate trip hazards (what triggered this need) and why were certain rooms chosen to require trip hazard mitigation over others?

Again, serious question. I am neutral regarding this code requirement.
Click to expand...

Safety is pretty obviously a worthy goal. The abitrary nature of which room types apply is a problem. There is also the problem caused by the real results...supposedly flush floor receptacles are rarely so, especially when floor finished are installed and especially when eventually replaced. Add to this the fact that people tend to not use floor receptacles due to inconvenient or nonfunctional covers, the fact that people in office attire will avoid kneeling on office floors, and the previously mentioned drastic improvement in battery technology that makes charging/powering in meetings unnecessary. It's a bit like mandating safer buggy whips.
 
Craigv said:
Safety is pretty obviously a worthy goal. The abitrary nature of which room types apply is a problem. There is also the problem caused by the real results...supposedly flush floor receptacles are rarely so, especially when floor finished are installed and especially when eventually replaced. Add to this the fact that people tend to not use floor receptacles due to inconvenient or nonfunctional covers, the fact that people in office attire will avoid kneeling on office floors, and the previously mentioned drastic improvement in battery technology that makes charging/powering in meetings unnecessary. It's a bit like mandating safer buggy whips.
Click to expand...
Imagine how well safety codes/regulations like we see today would have been accepted back in 1850:)


Buggy with air bags and antilock brakes:cool:
 
Lane departure, backup cameras and warning gong, hands free call and text, gps monitors.
I still have paper maps in my cars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top