Tom,
I almost met you recently at my first designer councel meeting in
Sterling Va. It was an interesting meeting. The topic covered things I do
every day. I like your DFM manual, also.
I wanted to post a rebuttal to your recent "Junk mail" posting. I
agree and disagree. As you said,
"There are alot of "weenies" out there who seem to take delight
in taking pot shots at the IPC, either with the QOD's, or the
certification program."
You are right, there are. And that is life. It is the mind set of many
designers out there. Some of the best, most imaginative designers I have
met I would place squarely in the irreverent, unprofessional "weenie"
category.
Now, these weenies have it in themselves to work 100 hour work weeks,
because some (more professional) electrical engineer is late on their
design. The weenie has to pull all nighters to recover the schedule. Not
their problem, but they help fix it. Let's agree, these are a different
kind of people.
They have a knack of seeing things that are wrong, or won't work. In
society, they may take 'pot shots', which often makes bruises but also gets
results. Perhaps their way of contributing is not professional, but it IS
their way of contributing. It is this same knack of seeing things that
won't work, and going for the quick fix which makes them excellent circuit
designers. (finding circuit which won't work)
I would encourage the rabble rousers to go ahead and rouse the rabble.
Thats who they are. I don't think we want to exclude those voices which
don't conform to certain codes. There seems to be two groups (at least)
out there, the professionals and the weenies. No disrespect to either,
both have important roles to play. The professionals need to hear the
weenies speak. The weenies need to hear the professionals speak. Which
brings me to my last point...
In your last para you wrote:
"I've done some "sidebar" internet chatting with some of the
other charter members of DesignerCouncil and TechNet. You don't hear
from many of us anymore, pretty much because of the things I've
outlined above."
This sound very much like you are 'taking your ball and your bat and going
home' because others are not up the the standards of 'the other charter
members'. As I said, the weenies need to hear from the professionals. I
hope this does not mean you won't contribute until everyone agrees to 'play
nice'.
In closing with a smile, I would like to quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail,
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
------------------------------------------------------
> Fellow DesignerCouncil Subscribers:
> I don't know about you, but I am getting really tired
> of all the "junk mail" coming our way. I'm not talking
> about job postings either.
> There are alot of "weenies" out there who seem to take
> delight in taking pot shots at the IPC, either with the
> QOD's, or the certification program. What has happened to
> professionalism? I'm not talking about passing a test, I'm
> referring to "netiquette". As for myself, I'm very proud to
> be affiliated with IPC activities. My employer (HADCO) sees
> real value in the IPC, and our people have started two
> Design Councils (Carrie Lawn in MD/VA and Jamie Morrow in
> Pittsburgh) over the last year. Another HADCO person is
> V.P. of the So. Jersey Council. Several HADCO employees,
> including myself, have been guest speakers at many IPC
> Council sites. Designer Councils are cropping up all over
> the country, and this is goodness. Long live the IPC and
> Designer Councils. O.K., enough of that...
> Regarding the QOD's, yes there have been some nebulous
> or even erroneous questions put forth. At the end of each
> QOD, you are asked to give responsible comment/critique to
> Lisa Williams at IPC ([log in to unmask]). This is where your
> comments should be going. Please don't clutter up the forum
> with your rumblings.
> Concerning the certification, this is truly a
> democratic process. If you don't like the program, get
> involved and change things. The IPC is a not-for-profit
> group that welcomes (begs for?) help with their projects.
> Join the IPC, either through a local council, or directly,
> and MAKE A DIFFERENCE! The end result is that the IPC is
> trying to make board design a profession, not a job. I have
> not taken the test. I work for a board fabricator and am
> not a designer. Even so, I get most of the QOD's right.
> Your company should have a copy of most of the pertinent IPC
> documents, since they are broadly accepted as industry
> standards. Certainly, the -275 and -276 documents should be
> a part of your company's library. It is my understanding
> that most of the material for the certification test is
> fathomed from these two documents. Dieter Bergman at IPC
> does a wonderful job giving seminars on these documents. I
> know because I attended one (at Colonial Circuits, one of
> HADCO's competitors). These seminars are offerred
> throughout the country, and I highly recommend it.
> There seems to be another war going on over job
> postings. Forum members several months ago voted in favor
> of allowing job postings. Let's get on with life. I
> support the idea that the subject should be clearly
> identified so that we can nuke those messages for which we
> have no need.
> Finally, there is that category of messages for which I
> really don't have a name. I'm talking about those mindless,
> child-ish messages that some very bored people send to the
> entire group. It's sort of like internet graffiti. I can
> only hope that they find some other way to amuse themselves.
> Why not check out a chat room on AOL or something? Leave us
> responsible people alone, please.
> I've done some "sidebar" internet chatting with some of
> the other charter members of DesignerCouncil and TechNet.
> You don't hear from many of us anymore, pretty much because
> of the things I've outlined above. Can we all make a
> determined effort to keep this forum professional? Thanks
> for your help... thank you, IPC, and a special thanks to
> those of you who make responsible contributions!
> Regards,
> Tom Coyle
> Field Services Engineer
> HADCO Corporation
> [log in to unmask]
>
|
