Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BillA
..."call it good enough" point ...
|
I still see it as split:
-comparative testing (i.e. being able to tell which one is better, with some certainty)
and
-analytical testing (i.e. being able to characterize the C/W)
If we start with one target, i.e. being able to measure a die/cpu temp accurately and repeatably within 1.0 deg C (which is rough, but it's a start), then I believe that the discussion can proceed.
I see both confused when this topic is brought up; any discussion is messed up with the above. I've even wondered if a Forum format lends itself to such a discussion, and what other format would. A forum by nature allows anyone and everyone to contribute something, anything, wether it's relevant, digressive, an opinion, or a position, but at the end, there is no leadership.
Why would leadership be needed? Because bringing up the topic is for the simple purpose of achieving a consensus. Why do we need consensus? So that we can satisfy our need to have a justified position, and proceed with whatever everyone is doing.
We have no leadership.
We have no consensus.
We have no position.
To be frank, I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated because we bring all these topics up again and again, but in the end, the only thing that we achieve is that someone contributes an additional small piece of data (i.e. IHS thickness, tim joint characterization, uncertainty issue with tim joint, ...), and it's easily lost. I have over 150 thread subscriptions to track it all.
If someone is going to lead such an effort here, then they need to be nominated.
If people are going to be contributing, then we need to know who and why; are they testing, planning to test, or just want to contribute?
Does any of this sound familiar already?
Some have opted to reject the WBTA; fine, I challenge someone else to take leadership, and do it here.
There, I said it.
