The great majority of the headers I have seen on this list have been good indicators of the post content. In a perfect world, a coded header organization system would be nice. But, we have to remember that in the real world, a significant number of drivers are challenged simply to determine which traffic light governs their lane.
Apologies, cause I know that those in this group are all much smarter than average. <grin> Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price [email protected] Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military & Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 11:16 AM > To: 'Robert Johnson'; [email protected] > Subject: Worldwide Compliance Alert > > > 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 [email protected] > 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: [email protected] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert Johnson [SMTP:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 10:00 AM > > To: [email protected] > > 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: > > [email protected] > > with the single line: > > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > > Michael Garretson: [email protected] > > > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Richard Nute: [email protected] > > > > ------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > [email protected] > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > Michael Garretson: [email protected] > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: [email protected] > ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected]
