🚀 go-pugleaf

This is the monthly posting of the comp.lsi.testing charter.


NAME/GROUP: 
    comp.lsi.testing

STATUS:
    unmoderated 

CHARTER:
    This newsgroup is intended to cover all aspects of the testing of
    electronic circuits such as (but not restricted to)
      *  Testing of Digital and Analog Devices
      *  Automatic Test Pattern Generation
      *  Fault Modeling and Fault Simulation
      *  Design for Testability
      *  Scan Design and Built-in Self Test
      *  PCB-Test and Boundary Scan
      *  Design Verification
      *  ATE

    Important topics are (again not restricted to)
      * Announcements (conferences, workshops, special issues)
      * Books on testing
      * Standards
      * Benchmarks
      * Questions and answers
      * Discussions concerning technical or algorithmic problems
      * Available commercial and public domain tools

    PLEASE: DO NOT USE THIS GROUP FOR "test" POSTINGS TO CHECK YOUR
    MAILER OR NEWS SYSTEM. THERE ARE OTHER SPECIAL GROUPS FOR THIS
    PURPOSE, such as "alt.test", "news.test", "local.test" ETC.

WHY THIS GROUP:
    The ever increasing number of publications on testing shows a
    vivid and growing interest in that subject. A newsgroup on 
    testing will stimulate and accelerate the exchange of related 
    information among interested network users. It makes it easier 
    to recognize current trends in testing, especially for novices. 
    
    The discussion period showed a general agreement on the theme.
    Our first proposal for the name of the group was comp.lsi.cat,
    which is similiar to comp.lsi.cad. A number of contributors 
    remarked that this name is not generally understandable or 
    misleading. Among the proposed alternatives were:
    comp.lsi.test, comp.lsi.testing, comp.lsi.ate, comp.lsi.ft (fault 
    tolerance). Taking into account that ".test" may sound like
    "alt.test", "news.test" which have a specific function within the
    USENET hierarchy, the proposed name "comp.lsi.testing" should be
    the most understandable and general one. 

    Some authors commented that there are existing groups like comp.lsi
    which do not have an extreme news flow to date. Splitting therefore
    should not be necessary. We have never intended to split any group
    due to "net bandwidth", comp.lsi.testing is a new thread. A closer
    look at comp.lsi[.cad] shows that these groups are mostly design oriented,
    and this probably raises the level for participation of non-designers.