Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Voting clarification
From: Prakash Narain (prakash@realintent.com)
Date: Thu Sep 26 2002 - 14:58:03 PDT
Harry,
While I appreciate the content of your argument, I must point out that
by broadcasting this suggestion, you are putting an undue pressure on
Faisal to use your suggested basis for his vote. It costs $5000/- to
become an associate member of Accellera. I believe that many of the
non-Accellera members belong to companies that can afford to become
members of Accellera and hence get the voting rights.
I believe that non-Accellera members are making an excellent
contribution to SV-AC. However, the SV-AC chair has a very
tough deliverable target and a significantly greater responsibility and
should have the freedom to choose the basis of his vote.
Best Regards,
Prakash
harry wrote:
>Hi Faisal,
>
>I would like to offer a suggestion concerning process (this is based on my
>experience with the FVTC). Many non-Accellera members have dedicated a big
>portion of their personal time to the development of this standard, which
>benefits us all. Their voice should be heard to some extent--yet we still
>must abide by the Accellera voting rules. Hence, what I did was ask all
>eligible non-Acccellera members to go ahead and provide me their votes. I
>then would only use their votes to break any potential tie votes.
>
>The advantage of this process is that it completely removed the political
>impact of the Chairman breaking votes and thus being perceived as aligning
>with any single party (another words, the chairman still leads--but remains
>neutral). This is just a suggestion. Obviously you should do what you fell
>will work best for your committee. However, the more politics that can be
>removed from the process--the better off we all are....
>
>-Harry
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Faisal Haque" <fhaque@cisco.com>
>To: "Sv-Ac@Eda. Org" <sv-ac@server.eda.org>
>Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:57 AM
>Subject: [sv-ac] Voting clarification
>
>
>>Folks,
>>
>>Some questions were raised about the voting prcoess so here are a few
>>clarifications:
>>
>>1) Requirements: David Lacey requested that this be classified as a minor
>>vote because with the major votes most of the users are left out of the
>>process. We have reviewed the minutes of the previous meetings but were
>>unable to identify a specific person requesting that requirements be
>>
>treated
>
>>as a major item.
>>
>>So unless anyone objects I would like to have the requirements vote be a
>>simple majority vote of all the participants who meet the attendance
>>requirements. If you would like it to be a major vote please make the
>>request at the meeting.
>>
>>
>>2) OVA donation vote:
>>a) This vote is to accept OVA as a resource for developing the assertion
>>subset for SV3.1. Allowing us to build consensus and create a unified
>>platform for the users.
>>
>>As the chair I have decided that this vote is a critical issue and should
>>
>be
>
>>voted on as a major vote. This vote needs to be done within the TCC
>>
>criteria
>
>>for donation acceptance which are:
>>
>>1- Must be compatible with SystemVerilog
>>2- Must be supported by a commercially available tool
>>3- If any part of the donation is viewed as acceptable, then the donation
>> should be accepted.
>>
>>-Faisal
>>
>>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Sep 26 2002 - 14:59:33 PDT