Leland

 

I have Word set as my default editor for Outlook – so when I write an email message, I’m actually working with all the tools normally available in Word.  On my toolbar, I have a hyperlink button.  So what I do is:

 

a)                   In my browser (Internet Explorer), I find the webpage I want to link to.

b)                   Highlight and copy the address from the top box on the webpage

c)                   Go back to my new message in Outlook

d)                   Highlight the word I want to use as the hyperlink text – in the case you mentioned, here

e)                   Click the hyperlink button in my toolbar, and paste the webpage address into the dialogue box, click okay

f)                     Hey presto (or should that be HistoPresto) you have the link.  Looks much neater than those long ugly website addresses!

 

Must confess that I’ve only started doing it since I’ve been running several blogs.

 

Cheers

 

 

Yo David!

How do you do that “details here” thing?  Thank you for the invite and information.  I will be flying the other way around the globe in search of the fountain of youth.

Best,

Leland

 

 

Leland

 

As Mike said, there are about 30,000 members of ASTM technical committees worldwide.

 

There are about 130 technical committees (see list here).  C18 and E06 each have a small number of preservation standard guides.  But there are a range of other technical committees that cover relevant standards on cement, mortar, brick, etc – these are much less ‘directly’ relevant to histo-presto concerns … because it is much harder to change them when the emphasis is on new manufacture.  Nonetheless, a well-reasoned argument backed by data and statistics will always result in some action.

 

Membership is $75 per year, and if you become a member of a technical committee (only requirements are an interest in the topic, and voting on all the ballots (miss 2 ballots and you get warned, miss a third and you’re off the committee, but you can vote ‘abstain’ if you don’t know the standards being balloted), you get one free volume per year – you can choose, so over a period of 3-5 years, you could cover almost all the standards you’re ever likely to want in your field.  Check out details here.

 

If you’re really keen, you can contribute ‘knowledge’ once a relevant standard is being balloted … or heaven forbid, you could even propose a new standard (but that usually means you get tasked with leading the drafting of it …)

 

And no, I don’t get commission for finding new members – the reward is good people making a contribution.  Whilst I struggle with the cost of ASTM standards, there is no doubt that they are providing one of the best services in the world with regard to developing and circulating standards, and they do that by and large without government contributions, as best I understand.  That is an enormous difference to almost all other standards-writing bodies the world over.  And ASTM standards, despite being US-centric, compare VERY favourably with other standards around the world.

 

Cheers

 

 

Mike,

Wondering why you had not commented.  Thanks for the thoughts.  However, $37 is not that close to $9,782 they want for the CD or $250 for the AWPA.  I don’t feel strongly enough to get in front of the bulldozer on this one, but if one is expected to follow regulations, codes or laws, you should not have to pay to find out what they are.  They should be readily available to all.  Maybe when I finish paying for my kids college, I will be able to afford to get a bulldozer. How does one sign up to be a voter on the ASTM Committees and are there qualifications?  You mention people vote on stuff they know nothing about.

Best,
Leland

 

 

Wow, take a weekend off and you miss dozens of interesting comments on BP! OK, I have a few to weigh in on...

Let's start with the original question... the C18.07 documents. I only recently became aware of C 1496 and C 1515, as they have come up for renewal and I am a voting member of C 18 (as a result of the proposed WK 69).

C 1496 isn't bad, though I voted against its "readoption without change" over a couple of points that I thought could be more balanced. (Dutchman repairs do not ALWAYS look better and last longer than patching repairs, as the document contends, particularly if original stone is unavailable or stone quality was poor.) My position on C 1515 is consistent with the majority of my votes on ASTM ballot issues, which is that if you are not an expert in the particular matter at hand, it is your obligation to abstain.

Now WK 69 is an interesting example of what goes right in ASTM that I wish the preservation community could emulate. A year ago, this was a seriously flawed document with a real particular commercial bias. When it was brought to my attention by a friend at IMI, I joined the C18 committee, filed a dozen or more negative responses on the ballot item, attended the subsequent committee meeting where it was discussed, and contributed to major rewriting of sections of the proposed standard. That document is still not perfect, but it is a much fairer, more accurate and more balanced document than where it was when it started.

That doesn't happen in any organized way in the preservation community at large. There is a tremendous amount of "seat-of-the-pants" decision-making, an inexcusable level of lemming-like behavior (just following what somebody else told them was good), and very little constructive debate on technical issues that might result in a consensus-based best practice. And oh yeah, non-technical people in preservation don't often have the good sense to abstain when they don't know what they're talking about.

NPS #2 is a slightly flawed document, though not a terrible one, and I do have a great deal of both personal and professional respect for Robert Mack. But there was no broad debate or consensus-building that went into creation of that document, and as a practical matter, it's being used as a marketing ploy by one of the authors to do things in a manner that is completely at odds with best practices. ASTM standards don't bear anyone's name or give them license to pillage the countryside in their name.

I have read E 2260 and it does need updating, but that is another positive feature of ASTM standards - these things don't automatically go on forever, they either get re-adopted, revised, or they automatically die.

Obviously there is a great need for these documents to be used and read and understood more widely, and in my own presentations on masonry mortars, for example, I explain why the standards say what they say and how they should apply to everyday repointing and rebuilding work. One example: I have fought with a REALLY well-known histo-presto firm on the issue of sand gradation in masonry mortars. Their specifications call for #00 sandblasting sand. WRONG!!! Just one example of really respected people in preservation who don't know a f***ing thing, but they have REALLY strong opinions about it.

The real barrier to wider use of ASTM standards? We should all admit it - most of us won't cough up $37 for a 3-10 page document unless we absolutely have to.

Mike E
---------- Original Message -----------
From: David West <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:32:28 +1100
Subject: [BP] FW: ASTM standards on building preservation

> I posted the following email on the AIC – ASG (American Institute for Conservation – Architecture Specialty Group) email forum the other day, and thought it would be useful to get some feedback from the much wider cross-section of the preservation community represented on BP.  Initial feedback from ASG has been limited, but what I have received suggests that these documents are not widely utilised at this time.  I wonder whether this is due to a lack of awareness, disagreement with content, or the cost of acquisition.

>

 

>

 

> As a member of both ASTM C18 on Dimension Stone (and Subcommittee C18.07 on Environmental Properties, Behaviour and Cleaning) and ASTM E06 on Performance of Buildings (and Subcommittee E06.24 on Building Preservation and Rehabilitation Technology), I was wondering how many members of ASG are aware of and/or use the following ASTM Standard Guides. 

>

 

> I’d also be interested in feedback on the adequacy or merit of each of the documents … and if that means separate strands for each of the guides, then I’m happy to ask the questions again individually !!!  And I know that there are at least a couple of other ASG members on E06.24, although I don’t think there are any other ASG members on C18.07 (delighted to be proven wrong).

>

 

> Subcommittee C18.07

> C1496-01 Standard Guide for Assessment and Maintenance of Exterior Dimension Stone Masonry Walls and Facades

> Status: Overdue
> WK21627 (Technical Contact: Bryan Imhoff) Ballot C18 (09-01) Item 014;

> C1515-01 Standard Guide for Cleaning of Exterior Dimension Stone, Vertical And Horizontal Surfaces, New or Existing

> Status: Overdue
> See WK14357 (Technical Contact: Matthew Redabaugh)
> WK21628 (Technical Contact: Bryan Imhoff) Ballot C18 (09-01) Item 015;

>

 

> WK69 Guide for Repair and Restoration of Dimension Stone (Technical Contact: Bryan Imhoff)

> Status: Subcommittee Ballot draft

> Subcommittee E06.24

> E1857-97(2004) Standard Guide for Selection of Cleaning Techniques for Masonry, Concrete, and Stucco Surfaces

> Status: Ballot Action Required

> E2167-01(2008) Standard Guide for Selection and Use of Stone Consolidants

> Status: Current
> WK20300 (Technical Contact: Alan Winterfeldt)

> E2260-03 Standard Guide for Repointing (Tuckpointing) Historic Masonry

> Status: Overdue
> WK20301 (Technical Contact: Alan Winterfeldt) Ballot E06 (08-02) Item 006;

>

 

> Note that unfortunately, the hyperlinks don’t work.  You can, however, go to the ASTM website www.astm.org where you will be able to access the scope statements for each of these documents (except perhaps WK69).

>

 

> Regards

>

 

> David West

> Executive Director

> internationalconservationservices

>

53 Victoria Avenue

> Chatswood   NSW   2067

> Australia

> T:     +61 (2) 9417 3311

> F:     +61 (2) 9417 3102

> M:    +61 (411) 692 696

> E:     [log in to unmask]

> W:    www.icssydney.com

> conservation&managementofculturalmaterial

>

 

-- To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html *Please vote for ICORS every 24 hours* http://www.lsoft.com/news/choicevote.asp
------- End of Original Message -------

-- To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html *Please vote for ICORS every 24 hours* http://www.lsoft.com/news/choicevote.asp

-- To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html *Please vote for ICORS every 24 hours* http://www.lsoft.com/news/choicevote.asp -- To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html *Please vote for ICORS every 24 hours* http://www.lsoft.com/news/choicevote.asp