I received an email from Robert asking me an excellent question which I will quote here without his permission (hope you don't mind, Robert!):
"I think we need to decide what it is that we are trying to do. What is
the goal? Are we going to recapitulate the ANSI standards with some
common sense thrown in? Or, what?
Once that is decided, I think we need to decide the framework for how
the group will the go about realizing the goal."
I think this is the question that we need the most feedback from the most people on to ensure that whatever we produce will meet the needs of all the different interests in the RTC community. Once the general goal and framework are mostly agreed upon it will be easier to wrangle out the details and fill in the blanks.
My point of view: Having a framework of Acceptable Climbing Practices (ACP) provides a point of reference for climbers. This is especially true for the new climbers coming in to the activity. It offers recreational tree climbers a higher level of legitimacy for tree owners too, be they private or governmental bodies. I know of one major country that is serious about creating standards for tree climbers (not the States) and is looking for models to work off of. The recreational climbers in that country do not want the government to model practices after rock climbers or tree workers.
Common sense and common language would be a big plus in a document around ACP.
I just posted on the "ACP Terminology" thread the question of who will be the intended audience that will read this kind of document. It is a question of what the goal is for doing this thing. Is it to
1. Regulate and legislate.
2. Provide guidelines.
Please read my other comment on ACP Terminology. Correct me if I am drifting aimlessly.