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

-- On Jun 23 2004 at 09:03, Bailey, Stephen sent a message:
> To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: "RE: [vhdl-200x] 1076 & Entity balloting"
> Hi Mac,
>
> I understand your concerns. In its past history, the DASC had a
> policy of recognizing the votes of non-IEEE members and, internal
> to DASC, treating them the same as votes by members. The reason
> for this policy was that many Europeans were not IEEE members but
> wanted to participate in DASC and DASC WGs.

Note - we do not use this policy in 1364. Only DASC & SA members
votes are counted. Those who are not enfranchised are encouraged to
take care of the membership requirements, and they are given a chance
to speak on the topic, and further their vote is solicited; but it is
not counted.

> What Peter has suggested in regards to recognition of individual
> participation at the sub-group level defines a way that the goals
> of this obsolete policy can be realized (at least partially) within
> the scope of today's P&Ps (at all levels).
>
> It is also important to keep in mind that:
>
> 1. Once a draft gets to the point of IEEE SA balloting, it is
> almost assuredly going to pass. In my experience, I have never
> seen a ballot fail. The most impact from balloting is the
> resolution of comments that identify some flaw or error in the
> standard. Of course, these have always been with individual
> balloting.

Agreed.

> With organizational entity balloting, the smaller number of ballots
> gives greater weight to each one. But, I would anticipate that the
> process would be similar where the balloters will essentially
> approve whatever goes to ballot.

I expect you are correct.

> The point being that at this stage, it is an all or nothing
> proposition and individuals and organizational entities will both
> feel a strong bias towards approval as the overall value of the
> standard is greater than the alternative. It is also the case that
> any substantive objections/concerns should have already been raised
> in the WG and resolved one way or another prior to balloting.

Agreed.

> 2. The real work happens with a relatively small number of
> individuals. This is where the greatest influence on the standard
> occurs. Therefore individual participation and voting at this
> level retains the majority of the influence that individuals have
> in the overall process.

Agreed.

> The addition of organizational entity approval of the sub-group
> output and guidance in the scope/organization of the sub-groups
> helps to ensure that the sub-groups generate what the organizations
> believe is needed in the market.

If we want the above structure, we must specify it in the PAR as we
change to entity status or we will not get it later.

> (It is almost like a bicameral legislature. Using the
> U.S. Congress as an example the House of Representatives is
> analogous to the individual members and the Senate is the
> organizational entity members. Each need to work cooperatively to
> achieve legislation/standards.)

Again, I fully understand such systems. However the legislature works
that way because its "PAR" requires such behavior.

My fear is that changing the PAR will deliver neither the money,
nor the voting structure desired.

I reiterate: we must put it in writing that non entity members can
vote in these sub groups _before_ changing the PAR to eliminate their
votes.

For reference, included here are the proposed P1800 Policys and
Procedures, which reserves all voting to the Designated Representative
of the entity members of the working group, who maintain attendence.

My guess is the new P&Ps will look like these. Perhaps people are OK
with this change. Perhaps not. Let us go into this with our eyes open.