Hi Rudy! As the chairman of the JSTD-003 committee I can give you a
response to the IPC reply you received. IPC has a negative vote procedure
in which each negative vote is reviewed, comments dispositioned in terms of
technical and editorial content, and a response is then sent to the
individual submitting the negative vote. Your negative vote was processed
through this procedure. No technical content was submitted and no editorial
suggested revision verbiage was provided for the committee to review. The
IPC reply you received was intended to inform you that your input was
received, reviewed, and not ignored. All comments received as part of a
specification ballot are considered important and are fully documented. If
you feel that segments of a specification require revision, then I
encourage you to provide specific proposed suggestions that the committee
can review. The editorial comment you submitted to the specification ballot
does not provide a proposed suggestion(s) that the committee could review
and consider for inclusion. As the committee chairman, I do appreciate your
participation in the specification ballot process.
Dave Hillman
JSTD-003 Chairman
[log in to unmask]
R Sedlak
<rsedlak2000@YAHO
O.COM> To
Sent by: TechNet [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]> cc
Subject
08/29/2006 09:34 [TN] Does anyone else on Technet
PM find this situation beyond
comprehension?
Please respond to
TechNet E-Mail
Forum
<[log in to unmask]>
; Please respond
to
R Sedlak
<rsedlak2000@YAHO
O.COM>
Just in case anyone still has any remaining hopes that the IPC might
actually someday attempt to achieve something worthwhile, or perhaps
attempt to minimize the confusion in our world, I offer this e-mail message
which I received from the IPC in response to my negative vote on the
proposed Immersion Tin standards.
It is important to realize, to get the full flavor of this message, that
the standard was submitted to me for my review with two options: 1. Accept
as written, or 2. reject, with reasons given for rejection. I rejected,
because the standard was written in a way which was essentially
unintelligible, and I could not even figure out what they were trying to
say.
I received the following message in return.
---------------------------------
From: Tom Newton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:46 AM
To: Rudy Sedlak
Subject: Your Negative Vote Submitted Against IPC J-STD-003B
Rudy Sedlak:
The IPC 5-23a Printed Wiring Board Solderability Specification Task Group
is in the final stages of resolving all Technical Comments for the initial
Ballot or potential upcoming Negative Vote Resolution Ballot on IPC
J-STD-003B, Solderability Tests for Printed Boards document. Sadly, this
is admittedly a
very long time since the original Ballot was closed at the end of June
2006.
Never-the-less, I am now responding back to you on your Negative Vote
submitted on June 26, 2006.
Please note that I have attached this response to the full string of
E-mail correspondence we have had on this document, so that the ‘history’
of these
communications is recorded.
Your vote on the ballot for IPC J-STD-003B will be shown as having been
submitted toward the Ballot on IPC J-STD-003B. That is, IPC will show that
you did reply to the Ballot.
However, because the following statement:
“The wording is so difficult to understand and convoluted, and it is so
verbose, it is essentially unintelligible. (And if I am offending key
people, I apologize, but somebody has to draw a line in the sand.)”
that was provided as your sole support for your Negative Vote does not
contain at least one specific technical detail with a suggested technical
solution, your negative vote will not be accepted by the 5-23a Task Group.
This response will be duly recorded with all of the actions concerning
the IPC Ballot for the IPC J-STD-003B document. Additionally, if IPC has
communication with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) on this
document, your vote will be shown as an “Unsupported Negative Vote” (one of
ANSI’s vote categories).
Accordingly, IPC thanks you for your ballot submission on IPC J-STD-003B.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Newton
Director PCB Programs, Standards and Technology
IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries
3000 Lakeside Drive; Suite 309-S
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Direct: 847-597-2849 Main: 847-615-7100
Fax: 847-615-7105
E-mail: [log in to unmask] web: www.ipc.org
---------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call
rates.
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee.
Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may
constitute a violation of law. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to
this e-mail, and delete the message from your system. If you
have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender
immediately.
|
