Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Results of PSL Advisory Vote
From: Alex Zamfirescu (hxml@pacbell.net)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 05:06:06 PDT
Steve:
Welcome to the real world! What I want to say is
that the consensus building is not easy.
What we all want is to get people to help the
re-vitalization of VHDL efforts. I would not look at
coincidences, or even common views as bad,
after all you want to build consensus even if that
is around what you do not personally think it is best.
Second, mapping votes to company boxes is non
productive. IEEE is not a place to fight marketing
positions, and participants should be encouraged to
use their "technical hat" at all times. Perhaps even
mentioning company names too often is not a
good IEEE working group policy.
If we get together and start talking about company
positions we might get in trouble with anti trust laws.
This (inability to bring the companies into discussion)
should convince the younger participants in the IEEE
standardization process about the fact that they have to
vote thinking only about the technical merits of a
proposal, and should abstain if they are not allowed
(by whatever constraints) to vote the technical side.
This is a matter of high moral and professionalism.
We can give an example by ignoring apparent coincidences.
As for people stating that VHDL is a mistake, and that work
should be done only on Verilog or whatever other system, we
can reply for example by listing the "top ten" mistakes in
EDA.
Number 10: wait on clock'event
Number 9: we write a correct package you change vhdl to use it
Number 8: interleave execution in Verilog sequential code
Number 7: "HDLs" sounds more like "H deals"
Number 6: dream of a sound system * on top of an ambiguous *
Number 5: write C instead of letting an optimized compiler do it
Number 4: whisper that VHDL is dead
Number 3: fight language wars instead of standardizing common essentials
Number 2: give away competitors' products
Number 1: forget to laugh :-)
I will stop here asking for your kind understanding of the
real life.
Regards,
Alex Zamfiescu
CTO ASC
IEC USNC TA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bailey, Stephen" <SBailey@model.com>
To: <vhdl-200x@eda.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:16 AM
Subject: [vhdl-200x] Results of PSL Advisory Vote
> As required by DASC and WG policy, only votes from DASC and WG members are
counted. Furthermore, only votes that were received prior to the suspense date
are honored. The original call for advisory vote is attached and clearly
states the suspense as Friday, 12 Sep 2003, 0900 EDT.
>
> Please note that DASC membership and the subscriber list for vhdl-200x
combined with a record of WG participation -- primarily measured by
participating in WG votes, see below -- are the only measures of WG membership.
>
> The advisory vote passes with the votes recorded as follows:
>
> Yeas: 8
> Gabe Moretti
> John Willis
> Jim Lewis
> J. Bhasker
> John Shields
> Chuck Swart
> Robert Myers
> E.M. Lavelle
> (as is customary, the chair did not vote but would have voted Yea)
>
> Neas: 0
>
> Votes received from non-DASC members:
> (Please see http://www.dasc.org/DASC-roster.html; a membership application is
at http://www.dasc.org)
> Ben Cohen
> Jay Lawrence
> Richard Wallace
> James Goeke
> Alex Zamfirescu
>
> Votes received past the suspense (all are also, or were not at the time of
the vote, WG members):
> Tom Fitzpatrick
> Mark Hartoog
> Gorgon Vreugdenhil
> Karen Bartleson
> Keith Gover
> Rich Goldman
> Jayant Nagda
> Karen Pieper
> Stephen Meier
> Brad Pierce
> Mehdi Mohtashemi
>
> It is worth noting that even if all of the disallowed votes were counted, the
advisory vote would have still passed, albeit by a smaller margin.
>
> I would also like to point out that there was a coordinated effort by
employees of Synopsys to defeat the advisory vote. As all of the votes from
these people have been disallowed as they came after the suspense, they did not
impact the result. I want to make absolutely clear that this Chair will not
allow the WG to be hijacked or derailed by such attempts. The IEEE and DASC
provide adequate safeguards to prevent or disqualify this type of behavior.
The first of which is that the WG must maintain a relative balance between
users, producers, academics and general interest categories. The second of
which is that the WG can collate a block of coordinated votes from an
organization that are essentially identical into a single vote. Votes which
are submitted as an organization cannot hide behind the presumption of
individual participation that the IEEE and this WG otherwise presume. The
third tool at the disposal of WG chairs is to disqualify votes if the rationale
given is
> out of scope. Due to the nature of this tool, I personally will try to
avoid using it in any but the most egregious circumstances.
>
> Of course, the WG Chair must validate the membership for all votes to be
recorded. I will also be measuring the participation of WG members as that is
a criteria. Participation is measured in terms of participating in WG votes
(see email documenting membership qualifications
http://www.eda-twiki.org/vhdl-200x/hm/0051.html). Since only 8 people on the WG
reflector voted, the rest of the membership needs to be sure to submit a vote
on the next WG vote or they will be dropped from membership (subject to
reinstatement rules outlined in the referenced email) -- but not vhdl-200x
subscription .
>
> One more comment about the Synopsys coordinated attempt to defeat the vote:
The issue of PSL being subject to change is a valid issue that the WG and
assertions team needs to be aware. However, a good faith effort to share this
information with the WG would have involved one or two emails on the subject.
Receiving 10 virtually identical emails all from employees of the same company,
the CEO of which stated earlier this year that the company would not
significantly invest in VHDL, none of whom had subscribed to the vhdl-200x
reflector and none of whom had previously taken any active participation in any
of the VHDL-200x functional teams CAN ONLY BE SEEN AS A BAD FAITH ATTEMPT TO
DELAY OR DEFEAT THE EFFORTS OF THIS WORKING GROUP!
>
> The WG welcomes any changes at Synopsys that would lead to good faith, active
participation in this working group. However, as long as the behavior of
representatives of Synopsys continue to reinforce the view publicly stated by
the CEO at DVCon 2003, it is fair to assume that such behavior will be seen by
other members of this WG as unlikely to be in the best interests of this WG and
VHDL.
>
> That said, I know there are individuals at Synopsys that, if they choose to
participate, would do so in good faith. Such participation is always welcome.
>
> ------------
> Stephen Bailey
> TME, Mentor Graphic's Model Technology Group
> sbailey@model.com
> 303-775-1655 (mobile, preferred)
> 720-494-1202 (office)
> www.model.com
> <<[vhdl-200x] Call for Advisory Vote: Simple Subset of PSL>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 05:12:22 PDT