Good and useful comments Jim. I'll continue with the open source analogy. Credibility comes from the quality of what is created by the contributors, not by the reputation of any one person. So if Genevieve or Abe or Harvey or Joe or Tim or any of the well respected teachers and innovators of rec climbing publishes their own document that covers what this TCI hosted working group is trying to accomplish... well, we'd have to tip our collective hats and say "Nice job!".

The point being that the purpose of this work is to create a solid rec climbing guidelines document. If someone else goes out and does a better job because they're spurred on by this effort, all the better for the tree climbing community. Though I doubt that would happen. By trying our best to encourage contributions from all corners of the community we have a better chance of coming up with an excellent guidelines document.

My theory is that the "mantle of authority" only comes the strength of the published document, not the web site where it is hosted. This is not to devalue Peter's (and Patty's) role as midwife to the project but to point out that credibility comes from the quality of the result.

Ever the idealist and optimist,
-moss

Isn't the point of this exercise to eventually "write down" the information presented by the many parties during the brain-storming time period in a "draft form" and them send it out for review by the interested parties? Hopefully have a final publication at a later date after all the modifications and corrections are incorporated.

If no one writes down something and is afraid of doing it or is told not to do it because he may be accused of taking over or "Authoring" the document them no final product will ever be generated and we will continue to talk in generalities about how great it will be to have some "Ethics" and " Best Climbing Principals" for the RTC organizations.

My point is: someone needs to write something down from all the ideas offered so far and present it for initial review. No everyone will agree to every single point in the proposal and they should offer constructive changes or modifications but that is the only way "rules" are made. So, Moss or Icabod or anybody with time or interest on doing it just go ahead and put out the "First Draft" and see what comes up after the fine tuning is done.

Like any other "rule" if you not agree with it, you can always ignore it.

Thanks for the clarification, Moss. It sounds as if we are in agreement. I apparently misunderstood what you meant when you wrote, "If some person or group takes material and claims the mantle of authority, their credibility will be zero."

Oldtimer, I agree with you, too. Something must be published so it can be reviewed, or else we'll just have another ongoing discussion about having an ongoing discussion.

May I suggest, having had experience with such things, that a very effective and efficient method of creating such a document when the parties are unable to meet face-to-face and work things out, is to use the Delphi technique? It's quite powerful and synergistic.

Delphi technique from Google:

http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html


http://www.carolla.com/wp-delph.htm

I'm deep into the definitive climbing book.
...Treeman

Obviously, I'm skating around the topic of standards. In the realm of things, people will be reading definitifve books on climbing 5 years from now, not standards.

My contention is that multiple books could be written on tree climbing. I see book writing as the most profitable venture going for everyone.

Regards,
JimK
Keep FIT -Friends in Trees

I know of two other tree climbing books being written now. I'm actually in friendly competition with one writer. Sharon Lilly just came out with her revised "Climbers Guide" featuring Bryan Kotwica's illustrations.

Standards are useful for reference. They will be used and revised on a regular basis, by who ever publishes them. Standards are short, concise, and do not take long to read. They do serve an important purose.

By "definitive" I mean very detailed. Much more content about specific climbing technique than what is now published and available.

Publishing is a speculative venture. It's a lot like building houses. Profitable? I don't know yet personally. I can hope and observe the upward trend with recreational tree climbing. I'll find out soon. I certainly wish the best to the other two authors. It can only help tree climbing, the publishing of more books on the subject.