Hi Tim
I agree and disagree.
We have a duty to support the final document as long as it gets as close as
possible to what we can all agree is "best practice".
If it fails to hit the mark in spite of all the work done by the committee
and all the constructive criticisms offered in response to the draft, then we
have an even bigger duty to explore and expose it's weaknesses.
Yes this raises the stakes for those involved in the review and that alone
may instill some perception of adversity if anything less than higher goals
are expressed, persued and attained.
To do less is to accept a compromised and weak document in principle. I for
one won't, but as part of the solution I have submitted a detailed article
and numerous specific notes of constructive criticism.
David Lloyd-Jones
PS. To complete the examination of your anaolgy. If when born it has the
front legs and brain of the Kangaroo, the back legs and tail of a Pig but the
beautiful brown eyes and face of the Gorilla, should we love it? Now those
breeding pedigree dogs might disagree but I'm with Darwin on this one.
<:::><:::><:::><:::><:::><:::><:::><:::><:::>
================================
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian MAY
To: UK Tree Care
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: BS5837
Happy new year to one and all,
I think as Arbs one of our biggest failures hinges on our eclectic approach
to
almost everything (this is particularly true of LA TOs where constrained by
local procedures).
An updated BS 5837 gives us the chance to sing from the same song book and
gives developers, countrywide parameters within which to design. It was
always
inevitable that some professionals would feel compelled to criticise this
standard publicly for whatever reason (myself included) however at the end
of
this process we as an industry need to endorse the final document for it to
have any chance of it being successful for the sake of what's left of our
urban landscape. We have had our opportunity to give constructive criticism
and now we must
give the editors the space they need to do their best. Notwithstanding,
whatever 5-legged Kangorillapig, that emerges out of the back of this, we
must
accept it and pledge our allegiance to it, otherwise we will remain divided
and vulnerable.
Regards Ian.................. >>> "Andersonarb@xxxx.com" 01/04/05
07:44pm >>>
In a message dated 04/01/2005 18:17:57 GMT Standard Time,
trees@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
writes:
> This begs the question how many people who were interested in
> >commenting failed to do so because it was such an onerous task?
> Well at least one. Having said that I noted Chris Hastie's comprehensive
comments and decided that my 2 pennorth was probably worth less than that.
Regarding your comments on readability Mike, Yeah, it was not a 'couldn't put
it down' piece but I suspect it's only your familiarity with the old one
that
made that incarnation 'readable.'
My opinion of the BSI has not particularly been lifted since I last thought
to
have an opinion on them, although I have the greatest respect for the people
sitting on (and off) the review committee....
Bill.
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 03/01/2005
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 03/01/2005
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
