[GSBN] SB code, clay plaster apology, and moving forward

[martin hammer]

RT and All,

I apologize for the tone of my e-mail response to Rob Tom and the group on
Wednesday.  I received justified flak both on- and off-list for some of what
I asserted.  I sent it at 1am, exhausted from travel, and operating on
extreme sleep deficit, and was unnecessarily strident with some of what I
said.  The performance / prescriptive example I gave (re: moisture content)
was not the best one, but was what immediately came to mind.

I do agree that performance code language is better than prescriptive
wherever possible (or sometimes both are best), but in my opinion it is not
always ³possible² (or even desirable) given the code context this is
proposed to enter.  Assuming at some point this effort is successful, I know
not everyone will be happy with every aspect of it.  But I feel strongly the
upsides are significantly larger than the downsides.  Also, it will not be a
frozen document, but can be built upon or changed, or even scrapped if
someone wants to propose a replacement.

I take seriously this position I have found myself or put myself in.  I will
continue to consider input from all sources, using my best judgment as to
what is put forward.  But the goal is certainly that it will work as well as
possible for all who might use it, wherever that might be, and for the
buildings constructed.

Regarding input for the Clay plaster section, nine GSBN members have
expressed interest.  I will communicate with them off-list.

There are a couple other issues raised that I will address separately.

Thanks,

Martin 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20120120/8540c5ca/attachment.htm>