[PEDA] Many similar Sheet Symbols

[Brad Velander]

Andrew,
	I took it that your issues were inferred by the quote. After taking the time to develop and qualify the test, few would then not run it or ignore the fact it failed the test and still call the function a feature. Maybe I am too isolated from a marketing/sales department these days? I am starting to once again think they must surely think similarly as we do!

Sincerely,
Brad Velander
Senior PCB Designer
Northern Airborne Technology
#14 - 1925 Kirschner Road,
Kelowna, BC, V1Y 4N7.
tel (250) 763-2232 ext. 225
fax (250) 762-3374


-----Original Message-----
From: ajenkins at avtron.com [mailto:ajenkins at avtron.com]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:01 AM
To: PEDA at techservinc.com
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Many similar Sheet Symbols


I'm not sure I agree re the quote. That sounds like it has an awfully
big conceptual loophole, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually
originated by some ISO officer. 

A plan to test is, by itself, only a plan to test, not sufficient proof
that the test has either been performed or that it has passed said test
if it was conducted...

The quote ought to read " It can be useful to adopt the attitude that a
feature doesn't really exist until it has been thoroughly tested and
proven to in fact be a feature"

aj