I vote for this.
Han JiangBo
Project Manager
for Packaging and Process Development
Hardcopy Electronics Operation
Agilent Technologies Singapore
Tel. +65 215 4703
-----Original Message-----
From: Romm, Doug [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 10:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
