RE: [vhdl-200x] 1076 & Entity balloting

From: Peter Ashenden <>
Date: Wed Jun 23 2004 - 01:12:57 PDT


Regarding use of IEEE-SA staff resources: We are advised that the
fee-for-services available to entity-based WGs are also available to
individual-based WGs. So it's not just a matter of having them for the
asking - they also need to be funded. Hence, this gets back to the ability
to attract funds to an individual- vs entity-based WG activity.

Regarding a switch to entity based balloting: This would require each entity
to nominate a Designated Representative (DR) and one or more Designated
Representative Alternates (DRAs). It would be up to each entity to decide
what latitude to give their DR and DRAs. Requiring them to seek company
approval for a motion to adjourn is clearly not workable. The example
doesn't advance your argument. The fact that other WGs are able to work
with entity membership indicates that it is workable.

A key point you're overlooking is that individuals will still be able to
participate. Furthermore, I would advocate that an entity-based P1076
provide for individual voting in subgroups (eg, our current FT, DTA, ASR,
TBV, etc teams). Entity voting could be constrained to approval of work
items and work products at the WG level.

I think we can set this up so as not to lose participation from expert
individuals, but instead create a better supported activity to maximize
their participation.


(as a VASG member)

Dr. Peter J. Ashenden              
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.         
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: 
> [] On Behalf Of Michael McNamara
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 June 2004 10:08
> To: Jim Lewis
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] 1076 & Entity balloting
> I also am initially against changing the PAR to obtain entity 
> membership.
> Could someone articulate the advantages of becoming entity based?
> My understanding is that no benefits are gained: that all of 
> the staff resources of the IEEE available to working groups 
> organized under entity status are also available to any 
> working group - we just need to ask.
> My understanding further is that switching to entity status 
> will require each current and future member of this committee 
> to get his or her entity to support them in their work here. 
> Further, each voter must then obtain some positive 
> affirmation from the entity the voter represents as to the 
> entity's position on the issue at hand; or alternatively the 
> voter must obtain a general affirmation from the entity, 
> granting the voter wide latitude to cast votes on behalf of 
> the entity on any issue that might arise in the domain of the 
> working group.
> Small companies and individuals, who can pay the fee to join, 
> will find the above to be no barrier. Large EDA companies who 
> derive the majority of their revenue from this standard, will 
> also learn to overcome this obstacle.
> Hnece as a practical matter, this change will make it very 
> problematical for employees of large corporations (Motorola, Sun,
> Intel) to participate in working groups, as likely those who 
> are knowledgeable on our subject matter will not be able to 
> get their employeer to give them a general writ; and further 
> it will not be possible to get timely writs on each 
> individual issue as it comes up in the working group --
> "Motion to adjoun, all in Favor?"
> "Hang on, I have to contact an officer of my company to see 
> what our opinion is on this matter..."
> Hence we will loose the participation we have from 
> knowledgeable users.
> I do not believe this is what we are looking for here - it 
> seems to be a non goal to eliminate the voices of the people 
> who have to use this stuff from the committee deciding the standard.
> In 1364 there was a real benefit in becoming entity based - 
> we would fulfill one of Accellera's requirements for donation 
> of SystemVerilog.
> In the end they decided not to donate to 1364 without regard 
> to whether we were entity based on individual based.
> Is there a dontaion we are looking for that requires entity basis?
> -mac
> -- On Jun 21 2004 at 00:38, Jim Lewis sent a message:
>  > To:
>  > Subject: "[vhdl-200x] 1076 & Entity balloting"
>  > Steve and Peter, 
>  > At the March 2004 meeting we discussed entity 
>  > and individual balloting and we tenatively decided
>  > that individual balloting was what we wanted.  
>  > 
>  > I am not convinced that having corporate membership 
>  > in IEEE SA is a way to get more funds.  At the 
>  > DASC SC meeting IEEE SA representatives made it 
>  > very clear that neither IEEE SA individual nor 
>  > IEEE corporate dues were contributed to working 
>  > groups.  Why would a company want to spend $1000 
>  > or more in a corporate membership for IEEE SA 
>  > just to be able to donate money to our working 
>  > group? 
>  > 
>  > It sounds like what IEEE SA wants is for us to have 
>  > is a separate consortium that funds our efforts. 
>  > A separate consortium that supports VHDL would 
>  > offer similar corporate recognition provided by 
>  > IEEE SA without the additional overhead of IEEE SA. 
>  > For packages trial standards could be formed by  
>  > having consortium standards that would lead to 
>  > IEEE standards.  Since they would be consortium 
>  > standards first, I think we also avoid some of the 
>  > copyritht issues with packages.  If not, packages 
>  > could be standardized only by the consortium.  
>  > 
>  > I stand firmly against Entity type organization
>  > unless individual balloting can be done with 
>  > just an individual membership.  My current understanding
>  > is that to ballot (in IEEE SA), one must have a 
>  > IEEE SA corporate membership which is a minimum
>  > of $1000.  
>  > 
>  > Entity balloting is an appropriate mechanism to use 
>  > when all companies participating have a direct 
>  > financial benefit from a standard.  For EDA vendors
>  > this is clearly true.  For users, this is harder to 
>  > demonstrate.
>  > 
>  > I have worked hard to encourage user participation 
>  > in the VHDL standards process.  Excluding users in 
>  > balloting and WG voting membership would destroy 
>  > everything I have been working toward. 
>  > 
>  > When you consider Peter's motion for changes to the
>  > par, please vote item 11 separately from ietm 13.
>  > My preference is for individual membership.  
>  > 
>  > 
>  > Cheers,
>  > Jim
>  > 
>  > P.S.
>  > Organizing as entity membership would invalidate 
>  > our current officers as each would be required to 
>  > be a voting member of the working group and with 
>  > entity membership there is only one member per 
>  > company.  
Received on Wed Jun 23 01:13:04 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 23 2004 - 01:13:14 PDT