The larger issue,

The sole purpose of specifications is to ease trade.  Users can, if they
choose, grab all or part of a specification "off the shelf" and use this
document to manage their risks and consequently yields and prices.  A
serious con of this method of trade is that a relatively small group
(hopefully a competent, open, well defined quorum) determines the level(s)
of risk.  There is NO way around this without undermining the ideals of
specification writing.  IMO there are two key problems drastically effecting
the efficiency of the IPC specifications:

1) ambiguity
2) the proliferation of the phrase "agreed to between buyer and seller"

In the recent emails I have read between the lines:

1) a tendency not to want to admit there is an ambiguity
2) a tendency to think that this forum is a well defined quorum capable of
setting level(s) of risk, by "interpreting" ambiguities.
3) a tendency to say well let's just leave to "agreed to between buyer and
seller"


Don't get me wrong, this forum is an wonderful tool.  I just feel that it
would be more productive to have a structured way to handle these issues:

1) decide if there is an ambiguity
2) debate possible level(s) of risk to be set
3) RECORD these possibilities and
4) take them to the meeting where we can vote
5) invoke the IPC version of openness by sending the chosen verbiage out

Just my two cents,

Chris Mahanna
Quality Manager
Robisan Laboratory Inc.
6502 E. 21st Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46219
317.353.6249 phone
317.917.2379 fax