Re: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote: Motion to Approve Draft PAR Submission

Standards, by definition, are product differentiation killers. They
reduce or eliminate competitive advantage. Why would an entity be
interested in supporting standards? They aren't and I submit that their
goal is to slow down the standards development process and water down
rich feature sets because of the expense to implement them in an
environment where they won't be able to differentiate! Duh!

Individuals want rich feature sets but don't have to foot the bill.
Users are so apathetic that only a handful of us participate in the
standards process out of tens of thousands of the engineers out there.
Mostly, those individuals who do partake in the process are not acting
on direct behalf of their employers (and their pocketbooks).
Consequently, the EDA vendor entities have no way of knowing what
features will actually get paid for. Let's face it -- we as users better
have the clout to get our companies to pay for the features we propose.

I would be for Corporate User Entity (CUE) membership. No EDA vendor
membership at all. That eliminates their ability to control the "product
differentiation" aspect of standards. Eliminating individual (but
dedicated) memberships reduces the liklihood of rampant feature creep
that could cost the vendors tons of money without giving them
competitive advantage. With CUE members the EDA vendors would at least
know that corporation have given an explicit thumbs up to features and
are **more** likely to pay for them. It would be up to the
representatives from each corporation to get explicit support to
participate, to dissementate standards info to their users and return
feedback to the development process. (Sort of a congressional approach.)

The least we can do in exchange for the advantages gained by standards
is to offset the the loss of revenue that comes from not being able to
differentiate their products by supplying them with almost guaranteed
sales of tools at the end of the process. They should be able to save a
ton on marketing and sales development.

--
Aspen Logic, Inc.
by: Tim Davis, President
Gabe Moretti wrote:
>There is actually an elegant solution to the "entity membership and voting"
>quandary.  I think the DASC should extend a friendly hand to the CAG and ask
>it to co-sponsor the proposed PAR.  Then the PAR will benefit from an
>established entity membership in the CAG as the voting constituency, while
>retaining the individual membership of the WG to do the important work of
>actually developing the standard.
>I know that in this way some WG members would be disenfranchised when the
>official vote was called, but that is no different from what has happened in
>the past when some members of WGs who were not IEEE members did not get to
>have their votes counted by the IEEE.
>There is always more than one way to solve a problem, some times one needs
>to look at it from a different point of view.  The WG could, for example,
>hold an internal vote on the proposed standard by DASC members to make sure
>that the "sense of the community" was correctly captured in the standard.
>Then the official IEEE vote could be called, thus providing the stamp of
>approval and implicit marketing support by the entities.
>Gabe
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Michael McNamara" <mac@verisity.com>
>To: "Bailey, Stephen" <SBailey@model.com>
>Cc: <vhdl-200x@eda.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 1:31 AM
>Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote: Motion to Approve Draft PAR
>Submission
>
>
>  
>
>>Just to make it clear - I am all for getting the industry behind
>>standards.
>>
>>It just seems prudent for we the members of the 1076 group to await
>>the DASC completing its definition of entity membership (especially
>>price) before we construct a PAR that can have only entity members, of
>>which there can be none until such time.
>>
>>I like my pools full of water before I jump in ;-)
>>
>>-- On Jul 20 2004 at 22:13, Bailey, Stephen sent a message:
>> > To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
>> > Subject: "RE: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote:  Motion to Approve Draft PAR
>>    
>>
>Submi ssion"
>  
>
>> > [Dennis's email bounced as he sent it from an account other than the
>>    
>>
>one he is subscribed with.  -Steve Bailey]
>  
>
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >
>> >   __X__  Disapprove (comments required)
>> >
>> > I stand by my first opinion that an entity-based constituency is better
>>    
>>
>than the individual-based constituency configuration to drive acceptance and
>adoption by suppliers and consumers of future versions of VHDL.  The slow
>uptake by the industry of VHDL-93 is proof in point that was well described
>by the Cadence Design Systems tutorial at CHDL-97 where they fired the
>"'shot over the bow' in the VHDL 1998 wars".  (See
>http://www.it.uc3m.es/~ifip/chdl97/tut-mb.html
><http://www.it.uc3m.es/~ifip/chdl97/tut-mb.html> ).
>  
>
>> >
>> > There should be no fear to seek market opinion to drive the evolution
>>    
>>
>of VHDL.  There should be fear when it is not sought.
>  
>
>> >
>> > -Dennis
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Bailey, Stephen
>> > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:18 PM
>> > To: 'VHDL-200x'
>> > Subject: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote: Motion to Approve Draft PAR
>>    
>>
>Submission to DASC Ch air
>  
>
>> >
>> > This is a call to vote on the Peter Ashenden's motion, as amended by
>>    
>>
>Jim Lewis's motion that the WG approved, to approve a Draft revision PAR for
>submission to the DASC Chair for approval and submission to NESCOM.
>  
>
>> >
>> > That the VASG approve the attached revision PAR for IEEE Std 1076?
>> >
>> >   ____  Approve (comments optional)
>> >
>> >   ____  Disapprove (comments required)
>> >
>> >   ____  Abstain (comments optional)
>> >
>> > The vote closes at 9am US East Coast Time, 2 Aug 04.
>> >
>> > As a PAR involves the scope of the WG and the DASC model P&P for WGs
>>    
>>
>requires a 2/3 approval of the working group membership to approve change of
>the working group scope, it is important that all voting members respond to
>this call for vote.
>  
>
>> >
>> > I have attached a copy of the voting membership.  Individuals listed in
>>    
>>
>red font have lost voting membership by failing to meet participation
>requirements.  If your name is in red font and you believe that you have met
>participation requirements, send me a private email so we can resolve the
>issue.  Otherwise, individuals who's names are in red may cast an unofficial
>vote as the first step in re-establishing their participation track record.
>  
>
>> >
>> > Thank you.
>> >  <<draft_PAR_JL_revised.html>>  <<PAR_motion_vote_roster.htm>>
>> > ------------
>> > Stephen Bailey
>> > ModelSim Verification TME
>> > Mentor Graphics
>> > sbailey@model.com
>> > 303-775-1655 (mobile, preferred)
>> > 720-494-1202 (office)
>> > www.model.com <www.model.com>  <www.model.com <www.model.com> >
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>