Marc,Doug,
I vote against.
I think this is mistake to split between "why" and "how". Really your whole
interest in this forum is limited to fluxes,soldering pastes,stensils and IR
profiles ?
Edward
Edward Szpruch
Eltek , Manager of Process Engineering
P.O.Box 159 ; 49101 Petah Tikva Israel
Tel ++972 3 9395050 , Fax ++972 3 9309581
e-mail [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dittes Marc (CPD AIT PGP) [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: ä àåâåñè 16 2001 16:26
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [LF] AW: [LF] Clarification on Leadfree Listserve question
>
> Great idea!
> I would not restrict the second forum to people that believe lead-free is
> a
> bad thing since then they think that only this position exists, but a
> split
> would be beneficial to all.
>
> Marc Dittes
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Romm, Doug [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 16. August 2001 16:09
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: [LF] Clarification on Leadfree Listserve question
>
>
>
> I suggest the current lead-free forum be broken into the following 2
> separate forums:
>
> **.lead-free.progress
> **.lead-free.debaters
>
> The second forum above (new) would be for those current forum members who
> prefer to steer every conversation towards 'why lead-free is wrong and
> should not be pursued'. The 'debate' forum would exist specifically for
> those who believe lead-free is a bad thing and espouse that anyone who
> pursues or even discusses lead-free advances is misguided.
>
> The first forum (original) could continue with technical discussion about
> lead-free progress, political updates on lead-free, environmental inputs
> that will affect timing of lead-free conversion, etc. This would meet the
> need of many forum subscribers who are actively working on implementing
> lead-free processes, materials development, etc. Forum members who happen
> to believe that lead-free 'will happen' (right or wrong), prefer not to
> receive continual debate e-mail on the issue, and would still like to stay
> up will all other advancements or developments on lead-free could then
> continue on the current forum. Those current members who prefer to
> continually debate the viability, reasoning, etc of the lead-free movement
> could subscribe to both the current forum and the new 'debaters' forum.
> On
> the new 'debaters' forum they would be free to vent their frustration with
> the lead-free movement and those forum members who are attempting to
> implement lead-free processes.
>
> This type of approach would allow each forum member to 'choose' whether or
> not they prefer to receive the forum posts concerning 'debate' of the
> lead-free movement. Those who don't prefer to receive all of the 'debate'
> postings would simply not sign-up to that forum.
>
> It seems like a fairly straightforward solution is to set up a 'debate'
> forum for those who prefer to continue the debate.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Doug Romm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charbonneau, Richard A [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 4:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] Clarification on Leadfree Listserve question
>
>
> Hi Jack,
>
> I don't see a problem either way. There is precedence for "dibbing-up"
> the
> subject matter (all one needs to do is to look at the newsgroups). For
> example, I subscribe to 5 newsgroups in "rec.audio" category as follows.
>
> rec.audio.high-end
> rec.audio.marketplace
> rec.audio.misc
> rec.audio.opinion
> rec.audio.pro
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Ellis [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 2:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] Clarification on Leadfree Listserve question
>
>
> Jack
>
> In industry, we have a great tendency to compartmentalise issues, even
> creating "hermetic empires" within companies in the hopes that a
> department will become "indispensable". This often leads to internecine
> wars between the departments. Today, we are beginning to realise the
> futility of this. Concurrent engineering is just one manifestation of
> this increasing intelligence. Modern technical specs which no longer say
> that thou shalt use such-and-such type of flux and thou shalt clean the
> residues with so-and-so type of solvent (and may all the devils from
> hell descend on you if you dare deviate from this by one jot!) are
> another. There is still a compartimentalisation manifest in the fields
> of sustainability, where we must take a "cradle-to-grave" approach. As a
> member of the Executive Team of the IEE Professional Network on
> Engineering for a Sustainable Future, I appeal to you not to
> compartimentalise this issue. Please allow us to take a holistic
> approach which must, by definition, look at ALL the issues involved as
> one subject, be they technical, commercial, environmental, economic,
> political and, yes, even emotional. We, on this planet, are human beings
> and we have feelings. I feel that separation of technical issues from
> the rest will degrade the holistic approach. There is a risk it will set
> the techies apart from the rest, in their little "empire" or, at least,
> an ivory tower where they can feel isolated from the real world that we
> have on loan for future generations.
>
> In addition, how on earth can you guarantee that the "Technical LF" will
> not evolve the same way as the current one has? This started out
> essentially as technical and then subscribers began to realise that many
> other issues were involved and started to say so. It would only need one
> person to suggest in the technical forum that, e.g., a lead-free alloy
> with n% of thallium is a perfect drop-in substitute for Sn63 when it
> would all start again.
>
> Finally, Jack, I think that most of the subscribers to this forum are
> "techies" (scientists, engineers and technicians). I do not like the
> idea of discrimination between narrow-minded ones who can see only what
> is directly in front of their noses and have no interest in the broader
> issues and those who already have a broader view. Is not this a form of
> class distinction?
>
> Please, Jack, don't!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> -----
> Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> Leadfree NOMAIL
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
>
> E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site ( http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm
> <http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm> ) for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
> ext.5315
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> -----
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> -----
> Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> Leadfree NOMAIL
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
> E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site ( http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm
> <http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm> ) for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
> ext.5315
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> -----
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> Leadfree NOMAIL
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
> E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
> ext.5315
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
