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

Folks,

The PAR is not the place to specify P&Ps. The PAR has provision for
specifying the scope and purpose of the proposed standard project and for
specifying the type of balloting group.

The WG P&Ps are the responsibility of the sponsor. Sponsor P&Ps are the
responsibility of the IEEE-SASB. In each case, convention has it that an
organizational unit agree to operate under the P&Ps approved by its
commissioning body, provided those P&Ps are consistent with overarching
P&Ps.

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 Michael McNamara
> Sent: Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:58
> To: Bailey, Stephen
> Cc: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: 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.
>  > > 
>  > > 
>