Order Elec items for a 2 storey extn, + BS7671 imperfections

[stillp]

even if I could somehow talk myself into IET membership, I certainly don't see why they would/should even consider nominating 'little me' for membership of JPEL/64 - I certainly have no experience of working in roles or industries which would be of interest to them. It's really a possibility which would only exist in fantasy!

I doubt the the JPEL would really want to consider opinions from diyers, when writing the regs. They would be inundated and would have no idea what qualifiactions/experince the diyer.

Exactly the point that I've been making to stillp. No matter what I may know, or what input I may theoretically be able to offer, it's almost farcical to suggest that there is any reason why they should take any notice of my opinion.

Of course, as stillp has indicated, BS0 obliges the BSI to undertake a public consultation, and theoretically also requires them to consider all comments (no matter who from) unless they are "offensive or vexatious comments or those that reflect a campaign on the part of a vested interest". However, as I wrote to stillp, and as you imply, I really do doubt that, in practice, they would give more than a few moments 'consideration', if that, (i.e. 'lip service') to comments received from members of the public ('diyers' or whatever) whom they had no reason to believe/know had any knowledge, qualifications, experience or expertise in the field in question.

For once, I think that we are totally agreed

Kind Regards, John

John, and scousespark,
Having been on "the other end" of the consultation process, I can assure you that every comment, no matter what its origin, as long as it is correctly presented, is considered and discussed. A response is recorded against each comment. What's important is the 'quality' of the comment, rather than who made it. The author of the comments wouldn't normally be visble to the committee anyway. What is important is that comments are constructive and clearly presented. We sometimes see comments that are not understandable, or where we can't see which text of the draft the comment refers to. Those are likely to be rejected, whoever wrote them.

The official line on getting involved with standards is at http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/about...ards-body/how-to-get-involved-with-standards/

 

[JohnW2]

John, and scousespark, Having been on "the other end" of the consultation process, I can assure you that every comment, no matter what its origin, as long as it is correctly presented, is considered and discussed. A response is recorded against each comment. What's important is the 'quality' of the comment, rather than who made it. The author of the comments wouldn't normally be visble to the committee anyway. What is important is that comments are constructive and clearly presented.

Thanks. That is very reassuring, even if a little surprising to me. You presumably are referring to the public consultation process, so maybe I misunderstood your previous comment that I should "join them" - since I still think that it is unrealistic to think that I could get onto a technical committee in the fields we are discussing.

Even if the committees do give proper consideration to all comments received during the public consultation process (regardless of who the comments come from), I've already mentioned that this 'one bite at the cherry' approach is does fall considerably short of a situation in which one is able to discuss the issues concerned - but it is clearly 'far better than nothing'. Do the committees ever engage in any dialogue or exchanges with those who provide comments and/or provide any feedback to them about their comments?

The official line on getting involved with standards is at http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/about...y/how-to-get-involved-with-standards/[/QUOTE]
Thanks. I'll have a look at that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Do the committees ever engage in any dialogue or exchanges with those who provide comments and/or provide any feedback to them about their comments?
Kind Regards, John

From time to time yes John. generally though it's just a one shot approach, and there will be a couple of later intermedate drafts before publication, so the final version can be quite different to the one on which you commented.
It's obviously more effective to actually join the committee, but does demand a certain commitment and there are a few entry hoops to jump through.

 

[JohnW2]

Do the committees ever engage in any dialogue or exchanges with those who provide comments and/or provide any feedback to them about their comments?

From time to time yes John. generally though it's just a one shot approach, and there will be a couple of later intermedate drafts before publication, so the final version can be quite different to the one on which you commented.

I need to read a bit more - is there no public consultation in relation to revised versions?

It's obviously more effective to actually join the committee, but does demand a certain commitment and there are a few entry hoops to jump through.

Indeed - but hoops which, I would imagine, it would be impossible for the likes of me to jump through.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Do the committees ever engage in any dialogue or exchanges with those who provide comments and/or provide any feedback to them about their comments?

From time to time yes John. generally though it's just a one shot approach, and there will be a couple of later intermedate drafts before publication, so the final version can be quite different to the one on which you commented.

I need to read a bit more - is there no public consultation in relation to revised versions?

It's obviously more effective to actually join the committee, but does demand a certain commitment and there are a few entry hoops to jump through.

Indeed - but hoops which, I would imagine, it would be impossible for the likes of me to jump through.

Kind Regards, John

The number of public consultations depends on the standard, and on the committee, as does the difficulty of joining. Some committees are desperate for members willing to contribute to the work, others are over-subscribed. I'm not a member of JPEL/64 but I suspect it's in the latter category.

 

[JohnW2]

Some committees are desperate for members willing to contribute to the work, others are over-subscribed. I'm not a member of JPEL/64 but I suspect it's in the latter category.

I would suspect likewise. Even were it in the former category, I would imagine that there would be more than a little hesistation in relation to someone without relevant qualifications or background.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The sorts of problems with the regulations being discussed here are those which are identified by intelligent, articulate and analytical lay people, with knowledge of but not expertise in the subject.

 

[JohnW2]

The sorts of problems with the regulations being discussed here are those which are identified by intelligent, articulate and analytical lay people, with knowledge of but not expertise in the subject.

I agree entirely that such is true of many, perhaps most of the 'problems' we discuss here - and, indeed, that there is probably a lot to be said for having such 'lay' people on such a committee. However, I still strongly suspect (perhaps incorrectly) that it would be very unlikely that any serious consideration would be given to appointing a 'technically lay' person to, say, JPEL/64, don't you?

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

with knowledge of but not expertise in the subject.

Why is it necessary to have expertise in a subject to be able to pass judgement on the way regulations are written.

It is not the content of the regulations that is in question.... It is the way that content is described that is in question.

 

[stillp]

Bernard, isn't that what BAS said?
Standards are supposed to be written for "intelligent laymen". They should be clear and unambiguous, which is difficult to achieve; those writing it know what theu want to say, but aren't always sure how to express themselves in a way understandable to others. In an ideal world perhaps that would be an argument for employing independent reviewers, but we don't live in an ideal world, and the nearest we get in the current system is the public consultation stage. That might not be as effective as being a member of the drafting committee, but it'll be a lot more effective than complaining about a standard on an internet forum, or down the pub!

 

[stillp]

I still strongly suspect (perhaps incorrectly) that it would be very unlikely that any serious consideration would be given to appointing a 'technically lay' person to, say, JPEL/64, don't you?

Kind Regards, John

I agree with you John, but mostly because the JPEL is a large (therefore inefficient, but that's a matter for another post!) group that as far as I know is not looking for extra members. In principle though, there would be no objection to a "technically lay" (whatever that might mean) person joining a BSI committee, provided that person was bringing some kind of expertise, even if just editorial, to the table, or represented some body (such as a trade association) with an interest in the standard.

 

[JohnW2]

Bernard, isn't that what BAS said?

That was certainly my take - although, of course, we do discuss some issues of content, as well as 'the way in which it is written'.

Standards are supposed to be written for "intelligent laymen". They should be clear and unambiguous, which is difficult to achieve; those writing it know what theu want to say, but aren't always sure how to express themselves in a way understandable to others. In an ideal world perhaps that would be an argument for employing independent reviewers, but we don't live in an ideal world...

Indeed. Is the reason why we don't live in an ideal world (in that context) essentially down to money? If so, do you think there's any chance that the BSI, and/or individual technical committees thereof, would be interested in 'independent reviewers' ("with knowledge of, but not expertise in" the subject, as BAS put it) if those reviewers' services were provided without charge?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I still strongly suspect (perhaps incorrectly) that it would be very unlikely that any serious consideration would be given to appointing a 'technically lay' person to, say, JPEL/64, don't you?

I agree with you John, but mostly because the JPEL is a large (therefore inefficient, but that's a matter for another post!) group that as far as I know is not looking for extra members. In principle though, there would be no objection to a "technically lay" (whatever that might mean) person joining a BSI committee, provided that person was bringing some kind of expertise, even if just editorial, to the table, ...

By 'technically lay' I meant without having formal qualifications and/or an employment history (i.e. 'experience') in relation to the field in question.

Even though, for the reasons you give, it's probably not really relevant to JPEL/64, what you say is interesting, and what I would have hoped for. However, I still wonder how on earth they would judge/assess whether such a 'technically lay' person did have 'some useful kind of expertise to bring to the table'. In my last post, I did float the idea about 'unpaid independent reviewers', which might be a more realistic approach?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I doubt that they would be interested in "free" reviewers. It's not just the cost, but the time involved for a) the reviewer to do his work, and b)the committee to consider the reviewer's comments.
At the European level, there is a CEN/CENELEC Consultant who reviews each standard that is a candidate for harmonisation under a EC Directive, and they can add a long delay to the process.

 

[stillp]

John, the lay person would be judged on the comments they'd submitted - I know a couple of committees that have invited people to join, based on the quality of the comments they'd made. I fact that's how I got into standards work.