D1.1:2020 - Used a MixMaster!

Date 04-01-2020 11:12

I think the best course of action is to remove all references to clauses, figures and tables from D1.1 in your paperwork to cut down on the amount of confusion going forward. They made a huge mess in my opinion. I understand adding clauses and clearing up questionable clauses, but to swap the entire order of the book that has been established for all of these years is unbelievable.

By 803056

Date 04-01-2020 12:51

I haven't seen it yet.

Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 04-01-2020 19:53

It matches a standard being used by several organizations and many of AWS's other standards and codes.

I makes some little bit of sense. Did it NEED to be done? No. Is it beneficial? Probably, especially after everyone gets used to it and all our reports, support documents, and other references adapt to the change.

Listening to Richard go through it in the presentation that is available or in person lends a bit to the background reasons.

Hopefully now that they have taken two cycles to revise the whole thing quite thoroughly, they can move on to dealing with Technical Interpretations that have been submitted over 10 years ago.

I won't hold my breath though. Borders on pure incompetence.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 04-02-2020 19:34 Edited 04-02-2020 19:37

Incompetence ?

Been sitting in D1 committee meetings in person for the last 6 years and have not missed a single one.

Hard headed? Difficult to process change? Yes

I've seen no incompetence.   Rather the opposite.

With changing chairmanship every few years there are things that slip through the gaps or maybe even get lost.    Remember that the digital offerings for inputs are pretty new... Anything submitted by mail years and years ago might possibly been overlooked... Sad but true.   I think incoming information is handled much better these days.
Andrew Davis just contacted me Tuesday for a Fabrication task group inquiry, along with Phil Torchio and Christian Zanfir. All three of us were able to respond and give value to the questioner within a day.    I know official interpretations are a bit different... I've lodged a few... But Just wanted you to know the system is making some good progress at serving code users.

The big changes in the Prequalification clause were totally targeted at serving actual code users in building a WPS in a more straightforward way, and I think it will be a big help. Unlearning the old memorized "go-to" locations will be frustrating for us old timers... So be it.

If your talking about something you submitted ten years ago and have never heard a peep?   Why not go directly to the chair of the task group and clause your question targeted?

The D1.3 Committee had a teleconference/WebEx meeting just on Tuesday because the Miami meetings were shut-down... We answered more than one interpretation together......

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 04-03-2020 00:53

Lawrence,

I stand firm and strong on this, incompetence.

Even back then, I submitted the original by email and specifically asked the secretary and the chairman if it was formatted good before sending a hard copy. They said they would print it out and it was fine as submitted.

Over the past couple of editions things have changed. I have actually submitted this about 3-4 times now and even Jennifer has assured me it was sent to the committee. I have sent notices to CEO's, District Directors, and others challenging the effectiveness of the system. Twice I was told there was no record of my submission even though there were discussions about it when I sent it.

I renewed it in 2015 with new references as the code clauses changed. I will probably do it again this year with the vast changes to 2020.

But, this is not the only one. I have 2 or 3 others hanging out there as well.

No, Incompetence is the correct word.

Brent