[labnetwork] Labnetwork - Process?

[Mary Tang]

Hi all --

I vote with Vicky.  I think it would be hard to separate process, 
maintenance, and operations.  Managing operations, even at a very local 
tool level, seems to me to require a holistic approach -- if a 
fabrication process is having a problem, it may be because of equipment 
issues or maybe the way the tool is managed or shared. I also learn an 
awful lot from the discussions because the questions asked are generally 
things I haven't thought of before -- or maybe something I've always 
wanted to know, but couldn't articulate. So I'm also with Vince, I read 
most every one that comes through.  And yes, I've been Duane'd on one or 
two overly specific postings which I've learned to redirect to specific 
individuals...  The system works.

Mary

-- 
Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
Paul G. Allen Bldg 141, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA  94305
(650)723-9980
mtang at stanford.edu
http://snf.stanford.edu



On 7/3/2014 5:11 AM, Vicky Diadiuk wrote:
> HI,
>  I respectfully but COMPLETELY disagree.
> MIT (Prof Duane Boning to be precise) has been moderating Labnetwork 
> for years & it's working beautifully.
> The information one gleans (even if one wasn't explicitly interested 
> before it got asked) is most useful, & participants seem to be pretty 
> relaxed asking specific questions.
> If the thread gets too detailed, it switches seamlessly to a 
> conversation between the parties.
> I don't think we need to make rather artificial process, equipment & 
> operations distinctions.
>
> If ain't broke ...
>
>  Happy 4th!
> Vicky
>
>
>
> On Jul 2, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Bob Henderson wrote:
>
>> Mac:
>> I think that is a wonderful idea. As I am more involved in various 
>> equipment and process technologies, it would be a good opportunity to 
>> help with more specific issues regarding advancements and new 
>> equipment available for a variety of nano specific questions and 
>> projects. Bob Henderson
>> *From:*labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu 
>> <mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu>[mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu]*On 
>> Behalf Of*Mac Hathaway
>> *Sent:*Wednesday, July 02, 2014 6:56 AM
>> *To:*labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu <mailto:labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
>> *Subject:*[labnetwork] Labnetwork - Process?
>> Hey All,
>>
>> As there is still occasional uncertainty regarding the main thrust of 
>> Labnetwork (i.e. general questions about cleanroom operation and 
>> administration vs. more specific questions of more narrow interest), 
>> I'm guessing that some Labnetworkers sometimes don't ask certain 
>> question, out of deference to others...
>>
>> If this is the case, does it make sense to create a parallel list, 
>> for instance "Labnetwork - Process" or "Labnetwork - Equipment", 
>> where much more specific questions can be aired without guilt(!), 
>> such as "Has anyone seen a difference between 5x9s purity and 98% 
>> purity TMA in their ALD aluminum oxide?"  Or do folks feel it's fine 
>> as it is?  I'm thinking a specific process or equipment list might 
>> bring in other folks for whom the general questions have not been 
>> sufficiently relevant to merit their attention.
>>
>> Just a thought that came up during the UGIM...
>>
>>
>> Mac Hathaway
>> Harvard CNS
>> _______________________________________________
>> labnetwork mailing list
>> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu <mailto:labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
>> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing list
> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20140703/cefb4ea4/attachment.html>