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

Bob,

As Steve indicated, DASC currently only has individual members, since all of
its projects are currently individual based. Should P1076 and/or other
projects become entity based, DASC would no doubt gain entity members. DASC
needs to determine requirements for entity membership.

Cheers,

PA

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
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: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Robert J Myers
> Sent: Thursday, 24 June 2004 06:39
> To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] 1076 & Entity balloting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve and Peter;
> 
> Out of curiosity, how many members of the DASC
> actually have corporate IEEE-SA memberships?
> 
> If this membership structure is adopted, do either of you 
> envision still having the same number of people actively  
> involved in  DASC efforts (which also includes VASG)?
> 
> Unless I was mistaken, I thought that there was a movement 
> afoot to try to attract people to join the SA and become 
> involved, in a sense to  "bring in fresh meat" -- what I'm 
> reading in the recent email traffic over the last day or two 
> seems to be somewhat contradictory to this.
> 
> -Bob
> 
> Robert J. Myers
> HW/FPGA Designer -- PSAS HW Engineering
> Raytheon Systems Company
> 2501 W. University Drive  M/S 8094
> McKinney, TX  75071
> (972) 952-4352
> 
> 
>                                                               
>                                                               
>               
>                       "Bailey,                                
>                                                               
>               
>                       Stephen"                 To:      
> vhdl-200x@eda.org                                             
>                     
>                       <SBailey@model.c         cc:            
>                                                               
>               
>                       om>                      Subject: RE: 
> [vhdl-200x] 1076 & Entity balloting                           
>                 
>                       Sent by:                                
>                                                               
>               
>                       owner-vhdl-200x@                        
>                                                               
>               
>                       eda.org                                 
>                                                               
>               
>                                                               
>                                                               
>               
>                                                               
>                                                               
>               
>                       06/23/2004 03:36                        
>                                                               
>               
>                       PM                                      
>                                                               
>               
>                                                               
>                                                               
>               
>                                                               
>                                                               
>               
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>