Mission, Goals, Objectives & Principles (final)

Mission Statement, Goals & Objectives, Purpose and Acceptance, How to Use the Standards, History of the Standards
johnleeke
Posts: 375
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 7:34 pm
Full Name: John Leeke
Location: Portland
Organization: Historic HomeWorks
Permissions: Yes
Location: Portland, Maine
Contact:

Re: Mission, Goals, Objectives & Principles (draft)

Postby johnleeke » January 3rd, 2012, 6:35 pm

Ann writes:
>>Jim Turner had some important things to say about window restoration supporting and building local economies. Perhaps that could be added as a principle.<<

Ann, why don't you write up what you have in mind and post a reply here?
John
Standards Co-Founder
Standards Editor

http://www.HistoricHomeWorks.com

johnleeke
Posts: 375
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 7:34 pm
Full Name: John Leeke
Location: Portland
Organization: Historic HomeWorks
Permissions: Yes
Location: Portland, Maine
Contact:

Re: Mission, Goals, Objectives & Principles (draft)

Postby johnleeke » February 9th, 2012, 7:00 pm

I want to find a place to fit this in:

Best work flows from the knowledge and skills of the worker, not the materials and products of the manufacturers.
John
Standards Co-Founder
Standards Editor

http://www.HistoricHomeWorks.com

oculus
Posts: 66
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 12:15 am

Re: Mission, Goals, Objectives & Principles (draft)

Postby oculus » February 11th, 2012, 11:44 am

I would like to see the wording of principle #1 altered. Sash joinery IS a fine craft that takes many years to master. The big companies are not performing a fine craft. They are factories that churn out as much product as possible.
As long as I still have breath in me I will not see this craft die! And you can take that to the bank.
Amy Harrington McAuley
Oculus Fine Carpentry, Inc.
http://oculuswindow.blogspot.com/
oculuswindow@gmail.com

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work"-T.Edison

johnleeke
Posts: 375
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 7:34 pm
Full Name: John Leeke
Location: Portland
Organization: Historic HomeWorks
Permissions: Yes
Location: Portland, Maine
Contact:

Re: Mission, Goals, Objectives & Principles (draft)

Postby johnleeke » February 11th, 2012, 1:35 pm

Amy, you'll see I have simply changed the first statement in Principle #1 to the present tense, which, I think, addresses the issue of current good works.
John
Standards Co-Founder
Standards Editor

http://www.HistoricHomeWorks.com

oculus
Posts: 66
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 12:15 am

Re: Mission, Goals, Objectives & Principles (draft)

Postby oculus » February 11th, 2012, 1:37 pm

That sounds great to me!
Thanks, John.
Amy Harrington McAuley
Oculus Fine Carpentry, Inc.
http://oculuswindow.blogspot.com/
oculuswindow@gmail.com

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work"-T.Edison

Martin Muller
Posts: 7
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 3:57 pm
Full Name: Martin Muller
Location: Seattle, WA
Organization: Double-hung Window R
Permissions: Yes

Re: Mission, Goals, Objectives & Principles (draft)

Postby Martin Muller » March 13th, 2012, 11:23 pm

I know I'm pretty late with all my comments, but better late then never......

With regards to:

5. Preserving and retaining existing windows is sustainable and environmentally friendly. It eliminates adding materials to landfills and prevents the use of other less environmentally friendly materials such as plastics, and aluminum.

I would suggest dropping the end "such as plastic and aluminum."
As we all know we each use obscene amounts of plastic during the restoration process in a myriad of ways, not the least of which is the use of plastic sheathing for lead-containing paint safety, disposed off in (goose-necked) plastic garbage bags that end up in our landfills...... This also puts a pretty good dent in the "environmentally friendly" property of preservation and retention.
Don't get me wrong, lead-baseds paint safety is a must. The use of plastic in the process is, in my mind, acceptable. Meaning plastic has its place. But lets not get too high and mighty about preservation having no (negative) impact. It's greatly reduced, but there still is an impact.
Which leads me to propose restating Principle #5 as follows:

5. Preserving and retaining existing windows is more sustainable and environmentally friendlier than replacement. It reduces waste sent to landfills, reduces the use of less environmentally friendly materials, and reduces the use of energy by eliminating the need for new materials.

johnleeke
Posts: 375
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 7:34 pm
Full Name: John Leeke
Location: Portland
Organization: Historic HomeWorks
Permissions: Yes
Location: Portland, Maine
Contact:

Re: Mission, Goals, Objectives & Principles (draft)

Postby johnleeke » March 14th, 2012, 3:04 pm

Martin:

You raise some good points. I have adapted your revised #5 with a few minor edits and put it in the draft:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=74&start=0
John
Standards Co-Founder
Standards Editor

http://www.HistoricHomeWorks.com

Martin Muller
Posts: 7
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 3:57 pm
Full Name: Martin Muller
Location: Seattle, WA
Organization: Double-hung Window R
Permissions: Yes

Re: Mission, Goals, Objectives & Principles (draft)

Postby Martin Muller » March 14th, 2012, 9:21 pm

I like your edits, John. Stressing the aluminum and glass (both energy intensive) is perfect.
Thank you.

Steve Stier
Posts: 3
Joined: August 3rd, 2011, 5:58 am
Full Name: Stephen Lee Stier
Location: East Lansing MI
Permissions: Yes

Re: Mission, Goals, Objectives & Principles (draft)

Postby Steve Stier » March 15th, 2012, 9:51 pm

I believe that we should work toward standardized and widly accepted language and nomenclature. I am no fan of following the Secreatry of the Interior Briefs word for word, but the "Standards for Treatments" are the only nationally recognized definitions of what we actually do to windows: we either Restore, or Preserve, or Rehabilitate and in some cases Reconstruct. I propose that we adopt these treatments and the definitions. They can be found at:<http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/overview/choose_treat.htm>.

I know in general usage (and in the draft of these standards) these terms are always confused, misued and misunderstood, but shouldent we be the ones to use some standard language and definitions, and have them be used in the standards.

I am very interested in hearing other opinions on this.

Steve Stier

johnleeke
Posts: 375
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 7:34 pm
Full Name: John Leeke
Location: Portland
Organization: Historic HomeWorks
Permissions: Yes
Location: Portland, Maine
Contact:

Re: Mission, Goals, Objectives & Principles (draft)

Postby johnleeke » March 16th, 2012, 10:04 am

Steve, thanks for jumping in here.

You write:
>>I believe that we should work toward standardized and widely accepted language and nomenclature.<<

As editor for the Standards, I agree with you and have been working towards that end.

>>The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatments are the only nationally recognized definitions of what we actually do to windows: we either Restore, or Preserve, or Rehabilitate and in some cases Reconstruct. I propose that we adopt these treatments and the definitions.<<

They have already been adapted, and are in active use as we develop the standards. See these definitions of the Types and Classes of window treatments, which are based on the Secretary's Treatments:

viewtopic.php?p=357#p357

Each and every individual standard now in development here is identified by Class and Type, linking it directly to the Secretary's Guidelines. Here is an example:

viewtopic.php?p=366#p366

>>I believe that we should work toward standardized and widely accepted language and nomenclature.<<

Beyond the Secretary's Treatments, we are busy on the technical side of window work, writing definitions for the words we use daily in our work, including naming all the parts of the windows, and the methods and materials we use. Check out the "Definitions" topic:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=58

>>I know in general usage (and in the draft of these standards) these terms are always confused, misused and misunderstood, but shouldn't we be the ones to use some standard language and definitions, and have them be used in the standards.<<

Yes, we should. If you see any terms used in the draft standards that are confusing or mis-used, be sure to post a comment describing how they are confusing or mis-used so we can clear it up.
John
Standards Co-Founder
Standards Editor

http://www.HistoricHomeWorks.com


Return to “Introduction”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest