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

Hi John,

First, Accellera has provided funding for 1076, specifically VHPI work. (I know you are aware of this, but I need to make sure all are aware.) It is my understanding that the VHPI funding has come from contributions by EDA vendors that are Accellera members.

However, the nature of Accellera membership is that it is currently biased towards Verilog using companies on the end user side of their membership. Therefore, some how, some way, we need to get VHDL using companies to step up to what should be an activity they are interested in.

On the Verilog side, they have used Accellera effectively and self-taxed the development of SystemVerilog. (I am told at least $150k has been spent on getting SV to the 3.1a LRM level.) On the VHDL side, we have tried to do everything within the IEEE and beg for money from Accellera primarily for LRM editing work (the technical proposals being developed by volunteers).

So, our choices come down to:

1. Pull VHDL-200x work out of the IEEE domain for the time being. Move the work under Accellera. Solicit new Accellera membership and funding of the VHDL work under Accellera. Once we get the LRM written, hand it off to IEEE DASC.

2. Keep VHDL-200x work in the IEEE. Ask Accellera to fund it. Which would still require me (or someone) to solicit new Accellera membership and funding of the VHDL work. (EDA vendor contributions are unlikely to be sufficient to cover the cost.) Here, Accellera collects and provides the funds. But the Accellera membership has very limited influence as long as the WG is individual membership based: a binary decision to fund or not.

3. Keep VHDL-200x work in the IEEE. Solicit funding of the VHDL work and channel that funding through the IEEE SA. With individual membership, the companies have no ability to directly influence the work (except the binary fund/not-fund decision). With organizational entity membership, they get a vote in the WG and on the ballot.

(For me, the use of Accellera or IEEE as the funding vessel is a secondary consideration. It doesn't matter as long as there are no funds.)

4. Hope some affluent angle will drop from the sky and provide us with the $200k that is the estimated cost for LRM editing of 2 revisions under VHDL-200x. (I'm personally not counting on this possibility. ;-)

It seems the common point of skepticism is whether a change in membership will increase our likelihood of funding. Here, a couple of role-playing exercises should be very illuminating:

First, I ask everyone to pretend like they are the decision maker at a company like Nokia, ST, Rockwell Collins, Xilinx, etc. Would you be more likely or less likely to provide funding to either Accellera or IEEE if you have no vote (control/influence) on what that money is used to produce or if you do have a vote?

Now, pretend you are me and you are making a presentation to these organizations whose PATRONAGE IS REQUIRED FOR THE SUCCESS of VHDL-200x. Do you think you are more likely to be successful in gaining the funding you require with or without the ability to offer them the benefit of a strong influence on what their money is buying?

We are selling something. How do we ensure it is packaged as attractively as possible?

I can start soliciting companies at any time. Since I don't like wasting my time, I prefer to do so from the strongest position. That's why I want organizational entity membership approved first.

No one wants to give up a benefit that they currently have. I understand and sympathize. Peter and I have pointed out ways we can keep strong individual participation and influence (where it really counts) not just to help ease the transition, but because we want to keep and encourage individual participation.

I'm hoping that everyone is keeping their focus on the priority: The future of VHDL. Also, I hope that everyone recognizes that without $'s there is no future. Hundreds of pages of new or revised LRM text does not grow on trees!

-Steve Bailey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John J. Shields [mailto:jshields@ieee.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 6:34 PM
> To: Bailey, Stephen; vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: 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 Thu Jun 24 07:54:50 2004