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

1) What I sent to you was the proposed P&P for P1800, not a PAR.

2) Recognize that once we change the organizational basis of the group
by amending our PAR, it is the new group that chooses its P&Ps, not
the old group. Hence these few days remaining before we change the PAR
to entity status are the last chance for non entity votes to be cast.

So I am suggesting that the WG consider trying to use the PAR as the
vehicle (and you are right, it is not an ideal vehicle; but the
purpose section gives the group a chance to outline some guidelines)
for instituting a requirement that the new group's P&Ps must maintain
a voice for the non entity in the new working group structure as some
apear to desire.

My fear is that crossing our fingers and hoping that the newly
constituted group will indeed grant rights to those that lose their
vote by this change will be futile.

-mac

-- On Jun 23 2004 at 13:36, Bailey, Stephen sent a message:
> To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: "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 15:28:10 2004