Steve,

 In deference to your age (you've been doing this since about the time I
was born), I'll try not to be too harsh (although I must point out that age
does not equal wisdom).

	* A "straw-man" argument is one which is put forth solely to be knocked
down.  I wasn't making a straw-man argument, and I don't think that GARP
was a straw-man either.
	* "Standards" are merely things against which other things are compared. 
You can say "properly" ... but I dispute that there is any proper manner
for their establishment: we live with the Foot, the Pound, etc.  Standards
are established by common consent, in many cases, rather than through some
bureaucratic process.
	* If a "standard" isn't specific enough, well, then you deviate from it
for some specific reasons.  A standard doesn't need some particular
pedigree, nor some particular process - it merely needs to exist, in
usage.  I understand that this may offend your desire for order in the
universe, but, well, I can't help your OCD - it's your own issue.
	* There is a strong desire for an established "standard" within the RM
community - and you seem perfectly happy to derail that standard in order
to have it be "properly developed."  Do you have specific issues with
GARP, as it stood?  Or are you objecting to it simply because it didn't go
through some bureaucratic process?

	* Is your issue with the wording simply that it's not using the language
you would prefer?  If that's the case, why would you wish to scrap the
whole thing, rather than simply have the thing reworded?  Are you so
hung-up on the language that you'd throw it all out?

Please, take your time in responding - I understand that, since you've been
doing this forever, you might need some typing time.

 -D

 On Thu 29/11/12 3:26 PM , Larry Medina [log in to unmask] sent:
 On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David T. Macknet wrote:

 > Are you just not thinking it through, Larry?
 >
 > Having an industry accepted standard means you don't have to defend
every
 > aspect of policy - you can point to the standard and say,
 >

 Okay I was gonna say, don't get me started...Don't EVEN get me started...
 and now you have.

 Am I thinking it through?? No, I'm hip-shooting... after 40 years in this
 field, when it comes to policy, practice, process and procedure, that's
 what I always do.

 And after 10yrs on the ARMA Standards Committee, including 4 as it's Chair
 and more year than that involved with ISO, AIIM and NFPA Standards... I'm
a
 bit peeved at someone using the term "Standard" so lightly.

 Want to know what it takes to PROPERLY DEVELOP Standards for their use and
 wide acceptance? Do a bit of reading here:

 http://goo.gl/RMu93 [2]">http://goo.gl/RMu93

 http://www.bsigroup.com/Documents/standards/guide-to-standards/BSI-Guide-to-standards-1-4-standards-creation-BSI-UK-EN.pdf
[3]">http://www.bsigroup.com/Documents/standards/guide-to-standards/BSI-Guide-to-standards-1-4-standards-creation-BSI-UK-EN.pdf

 And here:

 http://goo.gl/dft7x [4]">http://goo.gl/dft7x

 http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%2520Activities/American%2520National%2520Standards/Procedures%2C%2520Guides%2C%2520and%2520Forms/2010%2520ANSI%2520Essential%2520Requirements%2520and%2520Related/2010%2520ANSI%2520Essential%2520Requirements.pdf
[5]">http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20National%20Standards/Procedures,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/2010%20ANSI%20Essential%20Requirements%20and%20Related/2010%20ANSI%20Essential%20Requirements.pdf

 And if you've got some extra bucks laying around, here:

 http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail%3Fcsnumber%3D39976
[6]">http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=39976

 It won't take long to realize what "garp" represents are GUIDELINES, NOT a
 Standard. They weren't developed using the same principles or process,
 they are not speicific enough to serve the requirements of all industry
 segments or types of records, such as: classified, confidential,
sensitive,
 intellectual property, etc. They don't cover all aspects using "should" or
 "shall" language, and they haven't been reviewed and developed using
 Openness, Balance, Due Process and Consensus.

 So if you think you can say "everybody does it this way, and they do it
 this way because of all of these articles and arguments, piss off until
 you've read them and then come back and ask me again!", you can think
 again. They represent a Strawman, not a Standard.

 Larry
 [log in to unmask] [7]

 -- 
 *Lawrence J. Medina
 Danville, CA
 RIM Professional since 1972*

 List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
[8]">http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
 Contact [log in to unmask] [9] for assistance
 To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already
present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the
message.
 [log in to unmask] [10]?body=unsubscribe%20RECMGMT-L

 

Links:
------
[1] mailto:[log in to unmask]
[2] http://goo.gl/RMu93
[3]
http://www.bsigroup.com/Documents/standards/guide-to-standards/BSI-Guide-to-standards-1-4-standards-creation-BSI-UK-EN.pdf
[4] http://goo.gl/dft7x
[5]
http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%2520Activities/American%2520National%2520Standards/Procedures%2C%2520Guides%2C%2520and%2520Forms/2010%2520ANSI%2520Essential%2520Requirements%2520and%2520Related/2010%2520ANSI%2520Essential%2520Requirements.pdf
[6] http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail%3Fcsnumber%3D39976
[7] mailto:[log in to unmask]
[8] http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
[9] mailto:[log in to unmask]
[10] mailto:[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]