[vhdl-200x] FW: Information on Funding and WG Membership

Folks,

Further to my motion to change to entity balloting for P1076...

Steve forwarded to me the message below that he received in response to
questions about entity vs. individual balloting. This was in response to
questions that arose at the DASC-SC meeting.

I think an important point for P1076 is that entity balloting will make it
easier to attract corporate interest and hence funding support. Without
that, we will be unable to maintain and revise the standard in a timely
manner. The fact that Accellera took SystemVerilog to CAG, and has voted to
take PSL to CGA, is strong evidence that corporate interest prefer the
entity based approach.

Regarding funding logistics, IEEE-SA has advised that they can essentially
act as our banker, receiving funds tagged for P107 work and disbursing
expenses. They can also provide project management support on a
fee-for-service basis.

Cheers,

PA
(as a VASG member)

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
PO Box 640                                   Ph:  +61 8 8339 7532
Stirling, SA 5152                            Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
Australia                                    Mobile: +61 414 70 9106
-----Original Message-----
From: e.rashba@ieee.org [mailto:e.rashba@ieee.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 3:47 PM
To: Bailey, Stephen
Cc: a.ricketts@ieee.org; c.crary@ieee.org
Subject: Information on Funding and WG Membership
Hello Stephen,
I'm glad to follow up on our discussion from DAC and the detail questions
below.  In order to address the individual vs. corporate membership
benefits, it is important to understand that the corporate membership
program is focused on giving companies a voice in standards development at
IEEE- this being the #1 benefit of the program.
As you have heard, this concept is still contentious, as it implies that we
are moving away from our "tried and true" indivicual model; when in fact it
simply reflects the desire of one of our constituencies (namely, companies),
to be able to focus standards work to be more alligned with strategic and
business objectives.  The individual model is geared at determining the
"best" technical solution, which may not be feasible within the product
lifecycle timeframe.
Typically, if the funding is not coming from the government, it is easier
under the "entity" model for companies to justify funding:  They can be
assured that their representative is voting the company position and that
each company has one vote (and is therefore on equal footing).
We have alot of this information distilled in the literature (you may have
picked up a copy at the DAC), and expanded upon in the corporate members
website.  I will see if our membership area has a "traditional vs.
corporate" comparison that goes into more detail.  I have copied Colleen
Crary, membership manager, who can hopefully send you some more information.
As for the funding issues, I will defer this to Anita Ricketts, who manages
the funded programs, who will be responding to your questions in more
detail.
Finally, you should be aware that the next deadline for changing the PAR for
continuous processing comes up in early July, otherwise we are talking about
a September deadline.
Best Regards,
Edward
Edward J. Rashba
Manager, New Technical Programs
_________________________
IEEE Standards Association
445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ  08555   USA
+1 732 465 6449 phone
+1 732 562 1571 fax
e.rashba@ieee.org
http://www.standards.ieee.org
----- Forwarded by Edward Rashba/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE on 06/21/2004 02:46 PM
-----
 
                      "Bailey, Stephen"
                      <SBailey@model.co        To:       "Edward J. Rashba
(e.rashba@ieee.org)"            
                      m>                        <e.rashba@ieee.org>
                                               cc:
                      06/21/2004 09:10         Subject:  Information on
Funding and WG Membership          
                      AM
 
 
Hi Edward,
The 1076 WG is undertaking the consideration of our PAR where the membership
will be the key (most controversial) consideration.  So, if you have any
information that provides benefits of organizational entity membership over
individual membership, I would appreciate having access to it.
Also, I need information on how funding for the WG can be setup.  In the
past, Accellera (and its predecessors) have provided funding.  Does the
membership matter as far as setting up a bank account within the IEEE for
funding WG activities?  How does such an account get established?  How are
contributions to that account handled?  Do the funds disappear at the end of
the IEEE fiscal year or are they managed separately?
In your experience, is it easier to get funding for WG activities under
organizational entity membership or is the membership type immaterial?
Thanks,
------------
Stephen Bailey
ModelSim Verification TME
Mentor Graphics
sbailey@model.com
303-775-1655 (mobile, preferred)
720-494-1202 (office)
www.model.com <www.model.com>