Good Morning John, and how are you today?
Many thanks for your answer - I could not have hoped for a better illustration of what happens when a reader does not understand the background behind, the intent or the values of the person (or the committee) doing the writing, and then gets it totally wrong. And heaven knows I've done that often enough myself! I feel passionate about the regulatory work - I am committed to education (I sit on the IEEE Education Committee), I have lectured world-wide (not just in the UK and US) and am about to put a dozen training courses on-line. I believe that as compliance professionals we share (collectively and as individuals) enormous responsibility within our chosen profession. (As a design engineer I felt far less personal exposure for design decisions that I made then than I feel now in compliance engineering.) Whilst we all rely heavily upon IEC and other standards - what I tried to explain was that these standards are not revolutionary but evolutionary. Working in 'geological time' is not only a good time - it is ESSENTIAL for business. (If they were reactive industry would never keep up with the changes and we would be constantly re-certifying products.) What this means is that compliance engineers will face situations that do not appear in the standards. It means that compliance engineers will be face the day-to-day need to make up compliance criteria On-the-hoof; almost invariably under extreme pressure because we are 'responsible' for holding up the job, payment and shipment. The result is that the sum-total of custom and practice will flow down (via engineers such are yourself) and find its way into TC's and Standards. Hence things - and attitudes - will change. (For example - a few years ago you bitterly opposed my call for double mains fusing - yet I have seen more recent correspondence, from you, that proposed double mains fusing.) Things change. Hence compliance engineers need the framework provided by standards but will be expected to work outside that framework. In this meeting space we have had a broad input of specific needs (for the nuts and bolts, I have received private correspondence that I was asked to address in public - as my last email. BUT, what I was attempting was to stimulate the discussion to include how we establish the scope - content - education - interpersonal and other skills needed by compliance engineers. As compliance engineers we are free thinkers - how do me ensure and encourage that free thinking - how do we ensure that we can draw upon each others experiences (being ever conscious that many of us are consultants and cannot afford to become a free source of information to potential clients). So how do we go ahead? I believe that we must continue to provide inputs for standard development. This will allowing standards to become landmarks that mark our progress: and not become millstones that hold us back. (No insult intended - quite the opposite in fact. There are some that take a view that if a hazard is not in covered by the standard they do not NEED to consider it. We know that is not the INTENT of the standard, as I listed in my last email). Suggested path forward: >From established compliance engineers I want to know what helped you to develop in your career. >From those developing and developing other - what tools do you need >From everyone - where we go from here...... Hopefully the message is a little clearer this time - sorry to all who I confused. Best regards Gregg ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
