Post

Which committee is this? I thought this was a meeting of CACs (not the committees that vote at the code hearings), right? The voting coms DO largely keep up, tho they divide the work among "leads." The CACs have become vehicles for faux consensus, and I think this is how and why.

Yeah it was PMGCAC. That said, it’s going to be a similar story on the plumbing code development committee, no? Volunteers who are presented with hundreds of proposals, spending days in person hearing testimony and who knows how long reviewing the written reason statements ahead of time. The…

…committee members’ time will be “funded” either by a private entity with a vested interest, a government entity whose primary mission is not developing code, or out of their own pocket.

13/9/26, 7:34 pm0 reposts9 likes

David Bonowitz

@dbonowitz.bsky.social

As you note, big conceptual changes go nowhere without a coalition behind them. CACs are one way to try to build that. But the CACs are self-appointed and have no official say. The voting coms are applied for, and my sense is that they do still take their work seriously.

In a way, single-stair was easy because they were pressured by governments to pass it, the text was not that long, the proposal was extremely conservative by global standards, and frankly the science of egress is barely science at all, so they could just go on vibes.

But John’s single-stack venting proposal actually has a lot of science behind it, involves a lot of text changes, and comes close to bringing the IPC up to the global state of the art. It’s going to be a lot of work!

David Bonowitz

@dbonowitz.bsky.social

Yeah, and he/we should try to build consensus for it. A CAC is not the only way to do that. ASME or other orgs will be more persuasive (I think?), and a CAC is more likely to follow than lead. At least that's my experience with BCAC.