Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Voting clarification
From: Harry Foster (harry@verplex.com)
Date: Thu Sep 26 2002 - 17:53:32 PDT
You are absolutely correct Prakash--it was not my intention to send mail to the entire group (it was an accident) and it was wrong that this was distributed to a larger audience. The FVTC had a lot of academia participants whose contributions were invaluable--and $5000 IS hard to come by for them....
Please accept my apology,
-Harry
----- Original Message -----
From: Prakash Narain
To: harry
Cc: Sv-Ac@Eda. Org
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] Voting clarification
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 myexperience with the FVTC). Many non-Accellera members have dedicated a bigportion of their personal time to the development of this standard, whichbenefits us all. Their voice should be heard to some extent--yet we stillmust abide by the Accellera voting rules. Hence, what I did was ask alleligible non-Acccellera members to go ahead and provide me their votes. Ithen would only use their votes to break any potential tie votes.The advantage of this process is that it completely removed the politicalimpact of the Chairman breaking votes and thus being perceived as aligningwith any single party (another words, the chairman still leads--but remainsneutral). This is just a suggestion. Obviously you should do what you fellwill work best for your committee. However, the more politics that can beremoved 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 AMSubject: [sv-ac] Voting clarification
Folks,Some questions were raised about the voting prcoess so here are a fewclarifications:1) Requirements: David Lacey requested that this be classified as a minorvote because with the major votes most of the users are left out of theprocess. We have reviewed the minutes of the previous meetings but wereunable 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 asimple majority vote of all the participants who meet the attendancerequirements. If you would like it to be a major vote please make therequest at the meeting.2) OVA donation vote:a) This vote is to accept OVA as a resource for developing the assertionsubset for SV3.1. Allowing us to build consensus and create a unifiedplatform 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 SystemVerilog2- Must be supported by a commercially available tool3- 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 - 17:54:36 PDT