Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  117 / 234 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 117 / 234 Next Page
Page Background

LINKING PEOPLE, JOINING NATIONS

procedural documents covering the rules for voting on IIW standards by the Commissions

and IIW Member Societies, as well as a long term strategy for SC-STAND, with Dr

Glenn Ziegenfuss (USA) and Dr David Shackleton (UK) both playing central roles in the

formulation of these documents. Although gaining acceptance in principle, the process, in

view of the pressing circumstances to get important IIW documents approved, was slow and

tedious and remained so as measures to resolve the many issues concerning standardisation

descended into stagnation and resignation, with no further sign of publication of IIW

standards. Describing the problem was a lot easier than trying to solve it.

A fitting example of the frustration and difficulties in getting IIW

standards approved by ISO was the review of ISO 2560:1973

Covered

electrodes for manual arc welding of mild and low alloy steel – Code of

symbols for identification

, that involved C-II chaired by Dr Damian Kotecki

(USA) from 1991 to 2002. After submitting the draft of the revised standard,

the ISO/TC 44/SC3 task group detailed a number of amendments to be made

to the draft for IIW to consider. After the amendments had been incorporated

into the draft the revised document was then approved at IIW’s General

Assembly in Stockholm in June 1995 and the draft was resubmitted a second

time to ISO for approval as ISO/DIS 2560.2.

Again there was a substantial delay in ISO voting on the draft standard which

did not begin until August 1998. Although 14 members voted in favour the vote failed to

achieve a 75% majority with eight countries, all western European in origin, voting against.

According to ISO rules, having failed twice, a complete rework, not a minor revision, would

be required before the draft standard could be resubmitted. The dismay from the Pacific

Rim countries was expressed in no uncertain terms, particularly by Japan that was opposed

to having a revolution in their standards forced upon them by ISO. A

revision of a globally relevant standard such as ISO 2560 therefore

appeared impossible.

27

Not to be daunted, Mr Shinsuke Tsutsumi, Japan’s

representative on ISO/TC 44/SC3, gave voice to a new proposal

for a ‘cohabitation’ standard to solve this domination by Europe

of international standards; that is, one path being the European

approach and the other based on Pacific Rim standards. In doing

so, despite the different classification paths, most filler metals

could be classified according to both paths, which could be

acceptable to the ISO Central Secretariat.

28

Kotecki was

to write two letters to ISO explaining that ‘two somewhat

different systems of national and/or regional standards for

classing filler metals have evolved in the world market.

Damian Kotecki