On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Larry Medina <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David T. Macknet <[log in to unmask]
> >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.
>
HOLY SMACKERDOODLES BATMAN, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU FOLKS DON'T YOU KNOW IT'S
RAINING IN CALIFORNIA. YA CAN'T PICK A FIGHT WITH LARRY WHEN IT IS
RAINING. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?

>


> 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.
>
CLEARLY THE ELD IS UPON YOU.

>
> 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.
>
I ALWAYS WONDRED WHAT EFFECT TEN YEARS ON AN ARMA COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE ON
SOMEBODY, NOW I KNOW

>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>
>
> 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?csnumber=39976
>

WELL I LOOKED AT THEM. I CAN'T READ URL. WHAT DOES THE PERCENT SIGN MEAN IS
IT LIKE AN EXCALMATION POINT OR A PERIOD. NEXT TIME PUT HE ENGLISH VERSION
OUT.

>
>
> 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.
>
> OK, SO THAT PART MADE SENSE.  MAYBE A LITTLE TENSE FOR THE SITTING ROOM
BUT HEY WE ARE ALL ADULTS HERE, RIGHT? HAVE YOU STARTED BUILDING YOUR ARK
YET?

CHRIS FLYNN

ALWAYS NICE TO HEAR FROM YOU.

> Larry
> [log in to unmask]
>
> --
> *Lawrence J. Medina
> Danville, CA
> RIM Professional since 1972*
>
> 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]
>

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]