GTA: you're in
Arcsylver: sorry, you're out. This is about test benching, not system testing.
pHaestus: I guess I got a little carried away, originally, because I ultimately want to provide user testing. I believe that there is room for each of us to build our test benches any way we see fit.
Bill: Howdy! How's California treating you?
This Alliance is about cross-calibration, to give each member some backing to our results. As I explained to JD (privately), if I test a block and come up with a C/W of 0.20, with a +/- 0.01 error margin (yeah right, dream on!), and pHaestus tests the same block and comes up with 0.21 to 0.23, then I know that my rig is running right (almost), and that it's running on the high side. If the results were off, then either I or pHaestus (or both) have problems, and we have to fix them. By cross-calibrating each other, we'll be closer to a true mark, and we'll each know how valid our test bench testing is.
The Alliance is also about sharing the technical aspects of testbenching. I may not be willing to build a die simulator, so I might ask JayDee to make me one (and pay him for it, of course). I might forego the pleasure of designing a good thermal probe, so I might query pHaestus for a diagram, or other sources.
As for Bill, he's already invested more into testing than any of us ever will (together!), and his contribution (if it becomes available) would be his test results of his calibration block. With it, we can cross correlate our results even further, and tweak our test benches even further. No one should doubt Bill, he's just naturally grumpy.
Right now, I have no hope of attaining the level of accuracy that Bill had.