TECHNET Archives

May 1998

TechNet@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:
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Wed, 20 May 1998 16:02:15 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (72 lines)
     All,

     I have to agree with Ralph.  I am not one to grip, b***h, complain or
     otherwise (99.9%).  I would also like to see the specification numbers
     stay constant and to bump the rev where necessary.  At one time I
     could call out spec numbers and sections verbatim with reference to
     IPC.  Try doing that now and and you will build a Level III in a Level
     I environment.  So, is IPC trying to minimize the occurences of
     changing the overall control number and is there a spreadsheet on your
     webpage that shows superceded specs and their replacement numbers?
     Thanks.

     John


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [TN] IPC Specs
Author:  "Vaughan; Ralph H" <[log in to unmask]> at Internet
Date:    5/20/98 1:40 PM


Greeting,

I will be the first to commend ipc for all the good work that they do
for us, but I gotta say that the practice of obsoleting specs and
replacing with new, renumbered documents is making me long for the old
mil-spec days where specs NEVER changed (I never thought I'd say that).
Not too long ago, after much spec comparison and analysis, we convinced
our government customers that it would be prudent to move from
Mil-P-55110 to the IPC-RB-276.  In the time it took to get the new
drawing callout approved, re-train the pwb designers and revise their
guidelines, and bring our stellar board suppliers up to speed (no small
task),  RB-276 had been superceded by the 6012 document.  Now I just
learn today that IPC-D-275 is superceded by another document.  This
kills efforts to streamline and standardize documentation systems.
Also, when these continuous changes take place, it would be convenient
to have a detailed side paper published explaining all the changes (and
maybe why the changes were made).  May be a lot to ask, but it would
keep every user from doing it individually.

Anyone else see this as a problem?

That's all the whining for now.

Ralph

################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text
in the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TechNet
################################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://jefry.ipc.org/forum.htm) for additional
information.
For technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
ext.312
################################################################

################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TechNet 
################################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://jefry.ipc.org/forum.htm) for additional information.
For technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.312
################################################################


ATOM RSS1 RSS2