Draft Amendment 3 to the Wiring Regulations (BS 7671)

[stillp]

Well John, if the cap fits...
AFAIK we are all entitled to comment on the content as well as the scope of the draft, so if you want a change that is not included in the draft amendment, you would comment thatit does not go far enough and should address another issue.
What is most important is to make a proposal, not just disagree with something but offer a solution.

 

[JohnW2]

Well John, if the cap fits...

Needless to say, I probably wouldn't say that the caps fits - but it's certainly true that people are forever asking me to try it on

AFAIK we are all entitled to comment on the content as well as the scope of the draft, so if you want a change that is not included in the draft amendment, you would comment thatit does not go far enough and should address another issue.

Yes, but maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. Despite it's name, the the document on which we have been invited to comment ('the DPC') is not a full draft of the proposed amended version of the Standard. Rather, it is an assemblage of the proposed amendments, which generally does not include any of the content of the Standard which they do not currently propose to amend - the DPC is only 80 pages long, whereas the current version of the Standard runs to about 450 pages. My comment/question therefore related to whether there is an expectation that people will comment on parts of the current Standard which do not appear in the DPC document (or,indeed, whether they would even look at such comments in the context of the 'DPC' process). Do you know the answer to that?

What is most important is to make a proposal, not just disagree with something but offer a solution.

Of course. I would hope you know me well enough by now to know that (in general, as well as this particular context) I do not generally make non-constructive comments or criticisms. You will nearly always see me saying "I think it would be better if this said XYZ" or "I think it ought to say (or also say) XYZ", not just "I disagree with this".

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

John, you had expressed youself clearly; hence my statement

if you want a change that is not included in the draft amendment, you would comment that it does not go far enough

Yes, I know you'll have an idea of what you want, but my point was that you need to propose alternative text that you think is preferable; rather than just something like "revise Table XXX" you need to state "In 3rd row of Table XXX, change '0,42' to '0,68'".

 

[JohnW2]

John, you had expressed youself clearly; hence my statement

if you want a change that is not included in the draft amendment, you would comment that it does not go far enough

Fair enough - it was I who misunderstood you, then. I thought you were talking about changes that related to parts of the Standard which (although not subject to currently proposed change) were reproduced in the DPC document.

Yes, I know you'll have an idea of what you want, but my point was that you need to propose alternative text that you think is preferable; rather than just something like "revise Table XXX" you need to state "In 3rd row of Table XXX, change '0,42' to '0,68'".

I would always try to do that but, unless I thought it was simply an error in the DPC, I'm not sure that I would necessarily be able (from the position in which I'm in) to actual propose explicit numerical changes such as in your example. In such a case, I might say (with reasons) that I felt 0.42 was too low - but to actually propose an alternative number might be a step too far for little me!

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

it's certainly true that people are forever asking me to try it on

You are always trying it on!!

 

[JohnW2]

it's certainly true that people are forever asking me to try it on

You are always trying it on!!

Maybe - but it was, as you know only too well, actually a cap we were talking about

Kind Regards, John