Actually, my subject should have said "RE: EMC and product safety split".
When this started, I vowed that I would not get involved. I also vowed that
I wouldn't eat any of the cake on the table by the engineering lab. Now
both vows are broken. After I recovered from the sugar high from the cake,
I decided to throw in my opinion. If the subject of this message were
"RE: EMC and product safety split", would you have deleted it? I would. (I
apologize in advance for the sarcasm.)
The question of whether we should split the EMC and safety issues was asked
because people were having a hard time sorting through emails. I also
recognize that this task takes me some time. However, so far, my experience
has been that the information that I find is worth the emails that I have to
wade through. In today's world, not too many sources are as information rich
as this forum is. This forum is already saving myself and my company money.
I don't have to buy standards that don't apply to me, because I can ask the
people in this forum whether they apply or not. I can also get this
information without the bias of a marketing spin being put on it. Pure,
unadulterated, un-spun, fat-free information, a rare and precious commodity.
In my job description, EMC and safety are both included. The preponderance
of responses that I have seen agree with my viewpoint that the user-group is
OK for now.
I can understand the feelings of those who would like a split. I wouldn't
discourage them from persuing this. Heck, if I ever get sick of deleting
messages, I'll join you. However, most of the messages that I have been
deleting lately have "RE: EMC and product safety split" in the subject
line.
The irony here is that I know enough to delete these messages just by
reading the subject line. In a way, this sort of proves that the system is
working.
I beleive that Rich Nute has correctly and non-discrimininantly outlined
that those who want to change the system need to get three volunteers and
work with the IEEE to set up another mail group. I beleive that the "burden
of proof" now falls upon them. I do not want to make them look like
outsiders, because they are not. We need to continually ask ourselves if
the mail group could be improved. We also need to be open to everybody's
opinion. Along with Rich, I thank the people that brought this subject up
because it made me realize what I like about the group.
1. Typically, people only send emails when they have a legitimate question
or a job opening.
2. Typically, the email deals with EMC and/or product safety.
3. Typically, people use a descriptive subject line when sending a message
which allows me to sort quickly.
4. Typically, when I have had a question, the people responding have an
insight which I have not yet been exposed to.
5. Did I mention it's free!
6. I have learned quite a bit just from reading other people's questions
and answers.
7. I can get answers to questions without calling a test lab or paying a
consultant's fee.
8. We all benefit by being exposed to each other's experiences.
I think that it is good email practice to have a descriptive subject line on
any email that you send. (Sorry about the misleading subject on this one.)
That way, people can trash it or read it more quickly. It has been my
experience that people are already doing this (for the most part) without
using any acronyms or keywords.
I apologize for being long winded on the subject and I don't want to clog
the system any more. I think that we who like the system the way it is can
respond by our silence. Let me suggest that from this point forward, anyone
who does not send an email on this subject is agreeing to leave the user
group the way it is. This leaves the channel open for those who disagree.
I think that their viewpoint should always be welcomed. I just don't see a
bunch of support for it right now.
Please if anyone wants to respond to me personally, use chr...@gnlp.com and
let the EMC-PSTC forum get back to doing what it does best.
By the way, the cake was delicious!
Thanks for your time,
Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer
GN Nettest Optical Division
109 N. Genesee St.
Utica, NY 13502
PH: 315-797-4449
FAX: 315-797-8024
EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Johnson [SMTP:robe...@ma.ultranet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 10:00 AM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: EMC and product safety split?
>
>
> If the group is split, common and peripheral topics would have to be
> sent to both groups. Those interested in one topic would have less to
> sort through, but those interested in both would have to filter
> duplicates.
> I see no total gain but added administrative burdens.
>
> Don't ask for subject codes. Too much trouble making and keeping rules.
> Then we get into complaint chains about missing codes. It also makes
> things confusing for newcomers.
> Just reinforce the message we need clear titles.
>
> Bob Johnson
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
> majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
> Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
>
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
