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

[JohnW2]

there are very rarely discussions here which are primarily reg-bashing in nature.

Well, there's EFLI's first sentence at the top of the page, and your agreement a little later.

That is, IMO, nit-picking This is, IMO, a pretty unusual discussion, in as much as we are specifically discussing 'problems' with the regs. As I said, comments/discussions about such problems nearly awlays arise in the context of trying tio answer a real-world question, rather than being primarily discussions about the regs! If you hunted around, I think you'd find very few threads whose titles indicated, or even suggested, that they were about problems with the way the regs are written.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Since you've said it, do I take it that committees like JPEL/64 will accept such comments at any time, to be taken into consideration when the next revision of the Standard is being drafted, even though it is not in the context of (or within the time window of) a consultation process relating to a DPC?

They usually will, and it could be argued that they have a duty to do so. It's all explained in the links I posted earlier.

OK, I'll have another look of the links. I might even try to 'test' the system, although I suspect that (unless they eventually just 'do' whatever I've suggested in the next version of the Standard - and even then I couldn't be sure that it was 'because of me'!) it will be very difficult for me to ascertain to what extent, if any, my comments have been considered!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I feel I should point out that I'm not a spokesman for BSI, and I'm not a member of JPEL/64, although aI do spend a fair amount of time at BSI, and I know several members of the JPEL. I've tried to explain some aspects of the process so that people are more aware that the standard is not handed down from on high, on tablets of stone, it is written by ordinary people, in between their other activities, and they're doing the best job they can under the circumstances.

 

[JohnW2]

I feel I should point out that I'm not a spokesman for BSI, and I'm not a member of JPEL/64, although aI do spend a fair amount of time at BSI, and I know several members of the JPEL. I've tried to explain some aspects of the process so that people are more aware that the standard is not handed down from on high, on tablets of stone, it is written by ordinary people, in between their other activities, and they're doing the best job they can under the circumstances.

Sure, I, for one, fully understand all that - and am grateful for your insights into how BSI operates.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Since you've said it, do I take it that committees like JPEL/64 will accept such comments at any time, to be taken into consideration when the next revision of the Standard is being drafted, even though it is not in the context of (or within the time window of) a consultation process relating to a DPC?

They usually will, and it could be argued that they have a duty to do so. It's all explained in the links I posted earlier.

I've looked again. I can find mechanisms for proposing new Standards, commenting on proposals for new Standards and, of course, commenting on draft Standards as part of the public consultation process, but I cannot find any mechanism/instructions in relation to commenting on a current active Standard. Am I missing something?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Very true, that is why I gave first drafts of the user manuals I wrote to people with no experience of the equipment. Watching them struggle and noting the questions put a lot of material into the manual. Material I had not realised was necessary.

In some areas in which I regularly work, there is a legislated requirement for such 'instruction' documents to be satisfactorily 'tested on' people with no experience of what they relate to before they can be put into use.

That's for instruction documents ....

That's what I said ... and I was commenting on what Bernard had wriiten about 'user manuals', which are surely a type of instruction document?

... and from what you've said in earlier posts I guess relates to consumer protection issues with medicines?

There are certainly examples in that area. For example, Patient Information Leaflets (the bits of paper which fall out of your box of pills) often have to undergo compulsory 'field testing' of the sort I described.

That's surely very different from a technical standard.

Indeed it is - but, as I said, I was responding to Bernard's comment about 'user manuals'. However, the same concept really should apply to Standards which, as you said, are designed to be understandable by 'intelligent lay readers'. The only real way to verify that (whether mandatory or not) is to determine whether the document (of whatever nature) actually is easily/fully understandable by intelligent lay readers, who have not previoulsy been exposed to the process which created the document.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Given the day jobs of most of the committee members, that addition of two stages to a process that is already resource-limited could introduce intolerable delays.

Why would the country not have been able to tolerate new versions or amendments coming out a few, or even several, months later?

 

[stillp]

Since you've said it, do I take it that committees like JPEL/64 will accept such comments at any time, to be taken into consideration when the next revision of the Standard is being drafted, even though it is not in the context of (or within the time window of) a consultation process relating to a DPC?

They usually will, and it could be argued that they have a duty to do so. It's all explained in the links I posted earlier.

I've looked again. I can find mechanisms for proposing new Standards, commenting on proposals for new Standards and, of course, commenting on draft Standards as part of the public consultation process, but I cannot find any mechanism/instructions in relation to commenting on a current active Standard. Am I missing something?

Kind Regards, John

I don't think there is a defined process, but the responsible committee is identified in the National Foreword, and you can send comments to that committee. They will be given to the appropriate Programme Manager, who will usually discuss with the chairman what should be done with them.

 

[stillp]

Given the day jobs of most of the committee members, that addition of two stages to a process that is already resource-limited could introduce intolerable delays.

Why would the country not have been able to tolerate new versions or amendments coming out a few, or even several, months later?

I've known a review process to delay the implementation of a standard by over 2 years! The cost to the participants was huge, as several extra meetings were necessary, involving around 18 people. That's an extreme example, but where safety is involved, is any delay tolerable? Admittedly I'm thinking here of international standards, where the timescales are (believe it or not) tightly controlled. There is a belief among those who manage the development of standards that the world needs standards quickly to cope with changes in technology. Unfortunately that belief constrains the development process to the extent that some standards are published before they are really fully developed.

 

[JohnW2]

... but I cannot find any mechanism/instructions in relation to commenting on a current active Standard. Am I missing something?

I don't think there is a defined process, but the responsible committee is identified in the National Foreword, and you can send comments to that committee. They will be given to the appropriate Programme Manager, who will usually discuss with the chairman what should be done with them.

Fair enough, but that falls a bit short of a duty of the committee to consider such comments which you previously sugegsted might exist.

From my point of view, the problem with what you suggest is that, unless they provided feedback, I wouldn't know what the chairman had decided "should be done" with my comments. If one of the possibilities is that (s)he might decide to 'reject'/'ignore' my comments, I obviously wouldn't want to be wasting my time continuing to think about, compile and submit lots of comments.

Although being provided with comments later in the development of a Standard is presumably often/usually less efficient (for the committee), the public consulation process and duties associated with it are at least more clearly defined. Are you perhaps in a position to ascertain when the DPC for Amendment 2 of BS7671:2008 will be published?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

From my point of view, the problem with what you suggest is that, unless they provided feedback, I wouldn't know what the chairman had decided "should be done" with my comments. If one of the possibilities is that (s)he might decide to 'reject'/'ignore' my comments, I obviously wouldn't want to be wasting my time continuing to think about, compile and submit lots of comments.

Well, you seem happy to 'waste your time' discussing the possible shortcomings of BS7671 on this forum, where you know your comments won't be considered in the next revision. Are you saying you consider the certainty of failure to be preferable to the possibility of success?

 

[stillp]

Are you perhaps in a position to ascertain when the DPC for Amendment 2 of BS7671:2008 will be published?

I probably could find out, but I don't plan to since I'll get a notification. Why don't you write to the IET and ask?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Bound to be soon, now that I've bought an AMD1 edition.....

 

[JohnW2]

Are you perhaps in a position to ascertain when the DPC for Amendment 2 of BS7671:2008 will be published?

I probably could find out, but I don't plan to since I'll get a notification. Why don't you write to the IET and ask?

Fair enough. I just wondered whether you might have some sort of BSI 'calendar' at your fingertips, and it was only really as a matter of interest - I'll find out when it happens!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Don't worry BAS, John's comments will hold up publication of AMD 2 for a while!