Brian, et al,
All this discussion falls back to dealing with change. I'm sure
that none of us wants to be considered Luddites - opposed to updating
requirements based upon better understanding of fundamental requirements.
Remember that 60950 was developed from 2 European and 2 American
standards bringing office equipment and computers together; this brought
about a lot of change in the electronics world.
As I remember, there was much apprehension about all of this at the
time but folks have come around and the requirements are broadly used. 60950
remains the most active certification standard in the world (in all of its
implementations).
Additionally, there has been ongoing effort by the standards
community to continually update the standard to keep up with technology; the
950 committee has been an ongoing revision cycle project since the beginning
(25 years now) and still not done with it. Hence an attempt at a technology
independent standard in 62368.
Test houses and large companies will lead the way in the
implementation and interpretation of the requirements as they have the staff
to deal with this. Training programs and public forums (such as this PSNet)
will share lessons learned and be especially important to smaller companies
and their staff. It is well understood that this transition, compared to
the last transition to 60950, will affect thousands rather than hundreds of
companies and several order of magnitude more engineering level designers
and evaluation folks than last time; so more opportunity for training, books
and consultants. Both John Woodgate and I are smiling:>)
The TC has developed a rationale document to help explain the basis
for requirements within the standard. (Capturing this rationale, it has been
learned, is important for the internal working of the TC as time moves on.)
This will be important to those who want to have this level of understanding
of the requirements.
Finally, it has always been expected that 62368 will replace both
60950 and 60065. The real question is how soon; manufacturers would like
along time - 8 years or so, implementers would like a short time - 3 years
or so. Perhaps the compromise will be somewhere in the middle. None of
this will even start until the standard is fully accepted everywhere; this
request will be given when the 2nd ed is sent out for voting next year or
later.
Whether you (and your company) wish to be on top of this or bumble
along with the crowd will drive your own schedule at understanding then
applying the requirements to your products.
All this in not fully new and more than all wanted to hear. Time to
re-tighten your belt and move ahead.
(You might want to save this as PEPtalk #47 to better reference it
when I send it again.)
:>) br, Pete
Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Consultant
Tigard, ORe 97281-3427
503/452-1201 fone/fax
p.perk...@ieee.org
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<emc-p...@ieee.org>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
