Mission, Goals, Objectives & Principles (final)

[johnleeke]

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?

[johnleeke]

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.

[oculus]

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.

[johnleeke]

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.

[oculus]

That sounds great to me!
Thanks, John.

[Martin Muller]

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]

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

[Martin Muller]

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

[Steve Stier]

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]

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.