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

I'll take a look at the PAR, but I don't think the PAR is the place to put it. I believe the place to put it in writing is the WG P&Ps. This is one reason why I have not restarted a vote on the WG P&Ps -- I wanted to see how the membership discussion goes and what it may require as far as changes to the WG P&Ps.

In summary, it looks like we'll need to vote on the PAR and WG P&Ps as an integrated package.

-Steve Bailey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael McNamara [mailto:mac@verisity.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:28 PM
> To: Bailey, Stephen
> Cc: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: 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.
>
>
Received on Wed Jun 23 13:36:44 2004