IPC-600-6012 Archives

September 2000

IPC-600-6012@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Hill, Mike E." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Combined Forum of D-33a and 7-31a Subcommittees <[log in to unmask]>, "Hill, Mike E." <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:11:30 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (69 lines)
John,

Sorry,  I filled it out without comments.  OPPS!!!

1. I would delete Question 11  (don't understand exactly but if you end up
with two documents why change the two you have)

2. Delete Question 12 ...does not make any sense...6012 has to survive.

3. Question 22...What is a "specifier"???  "Specify" how to interpret the
600 or 6012 document? Maybe the word "administer",....don't know the intent

4. Question 16,  I could live without this question...600 by far cost the
most to print and we are not going to eliminate the photos so the combined
document will not be much cheaper.  It's not a cost issue..my opinion.


Mike





> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Perry [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 1:19 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      [IPC-600-6012] Strawman Follow-up survey for IPC-A-600 /
> IPC-6012 Merge Issue
>
> Colleagues,
>
> During IPCWorks 2000 I had a chance to present attendees with copies of a
> strawman for a proposed follow-up survey on the IPC-600/6012 Merge topic.
> The initial survey that went out to the industry earlier this year was not
> structured in such a way that we could guarantee that the recipients of
> the survey were actual users of the two documents.  That being said, it
> was suggested that a more detailed follow-up survey be distributed to
> obtain a more accurate response.
>
> Attached is a strawman effort for this follow-up.  To garnish the response
> rate that I'll be looking for, history has shown we get best results when
> the survey doesn't extend into multiple pages.  Short ones get filled out
> and sent back relatively quickly.
>
> I'd like this groups comments or suggestions on the questions within this
> strawman survey.  I'd like to whittle it down from the 22 questions to
> perhaps a dozen at most - whatever I can get on one page.  Any
> recommendations or suggestions you'd have are greatly appreciated.
>
> Let's go for having any recommendations submitted by 10/16/00.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
> John Perry
> Technical Project Manager
> IPC
> 2215 Sanders Road
> Northbrook, Il 60062
> 1-847-790-5318 (P)
> 1-847-509-9798 (F)
> [log in to unmask]
>  << File: Follow-up Survey1.rtf >>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2