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

Steve,

I've read through this discussion. I am more open to the idea of entity
membership, but remain skeptical of its overall effect. There are serious
concerns raised and the funding reality is compelling. I would be interested
in using our liason to Accellera to get the viewpoint of the member
corporations who are funding Accellera and presumably would provide
significant financial support to the DASC.

Is it important to Accellera members to have entity-based membership
over vhdl-200x effort and presumably to extend this model to all future
DASC efforts?

Is it likely that Accellera member companies will scale up their investment
to meet DASC annual needs in addition to Accellera's own needs or tradeoff
their standards $ (e.g., earmark substantial Accellera budget for DASC, let
DASC starve)?

Would an entity controlled and funded DASC obviate much of the need for
Accellera to exist? Scale it back in any way?

As a follow-up to that question, what roles do the member companies wish to
promote as appropriate for Accellera vs DASC?

I don't want to see an inappropriate discussion. It is these entities and
their money we seek and for which we are proposing controversial change.
Can we be direct and ask the players to discuss what we are considering and
give us some meaningful feedback?

If pressed to vote now, I'd vote against and seek the political groundwork
for improving our funding to be carried further first.

Regards,
John Shields
Received on Wed Jun 23 17:33:57 2004