Hmmm. The tone seems to be degenerating, maybe we should slow down a bit here.
Todd: I have a couple of problems regarding your initial post. First, it's the programmers and integrators that need to know about "safe control theory" so they can implement it correctly, not necessarily the leader of the board. Second, many of the people who work on EMC are aware of industrial "best practices", and use this knowledge when making their contributions to EMC. I routinely work on control software for multi-megawatt power supplies - the kind that may taake out the generating plant if they work incorrectly. I don't often need to use that kind of knowledge in EMC, but it does give me a firm hold on what is required for E-STOP, machine diagnostics, etc. Third, it's much more helpful if you can point out deficiencies in the code, the system design, the documentation - somewhere - if you think they're there. The alternative to this is to make suggestions about how you think EMC should operate. Personally, I think you're a bit out of line calling John arrogant for his response (if that's indeed what you did). He has contributed a great deal to the project, and as far as I know, nothing he's done could be considered "hobby-grade". I think his response was responsible and courteous, and I believe it was meant to be informative about his experience in the realm of industrial controls. Of course, I could be wrong about anything here, it's all a matter of opinion. Again, if there are any changes you feel are necessary or desirable, please let us know. EMC was originally designed roughly a decade ago (you know its history better than I), so it seems likely that modern machines would have advanced to a point where the old organization of the code and division of labor between subsystems isn't ideal. Please understand that there's a lot of talent in the programmer pool. If we don't yet know what needs to be changed to stay competitive, it's your responsibility as a user or potential user to tell us. That's the co-operative open source way. Thanks for your time - Steve Todd Bombaci wrote: > John > This is not about turning your backs on hobbyist it is about putting > an industrial control in hobbyist hands and with the people in charge > of emc doing exactly that. Because you design industrial drives does > not mean you are a cnc expert.How long do you test your drives before > you send them out to the general public.Have you ever ran a industrial > cnc have you gone to a cnc tool show and seen what options are on > them.Have you ever set up a true cnc machine,but being arrogant is not > how you treat emc users. > > */John Kasunich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: > > Todd Bombaci wrote: > > Hi > > I would like to see some discussion's on having a president for > emc so > > the project can be followed in the way it was started and that's > for an > > industrial cnc control and not a hobby cnc control. A person who is > > knows industrial controls and integration. Most corporations not > only > > have a board but also a president who can make sure safe control > theory > > and not hobby practices are used. I would like to nominate Ray > Henry for > > this position if it is taken any farther. > > Thank you > > There is a "president" position on the board, but it is not > particularly > different than any other board member. The president presides at board > meetings if needed. However all board members have equal votes. If you > believe Ray represents your wishes, nominate him for the board, > and vote > for him. > > In my opinion, EMC should always strive to be an "industrial" quality > controller. But we should not turn our backs on "hobby" users either. > > To imply that "hobby practices" are unsafe is rather insulting. I may > work on EMC as a hobby, but in my day job I design 200-1000 horsepower > drives for a major industrial supplier. I am well aware of safety > issues in an industrial control environment. > > I also am well aware that the safety of a machine is determined by the > person who does the machine integration, NOT by the software. You can > build a safe machine with EMC, and you can build an unsafe machine > with > EMC. > > Regards, > > John Kasunich > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a > browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Emc-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. >Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. >Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. >Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Emc-users mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
