RE: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote: Motion to Approve Draft PAR Submi ssion

Gabe,

This is not new ground in that there is nothing substantially new in your suggestion. It only proposes an administrative way to handle organizational entity membership. Based on the opinions expressed on this forum, this was not a fundamental consideration for the choice of WG membership.

The WG has already approved the amended motion which primarily replaces organizational entity membership in the draft PAR with individual membership.

Of course, you and Dennis (and others) are welcome to continue trying to persuade people. However:

1. The discussion period officially ended when the vote began.

2. A continued re-hashing of positions does not equate to progress and can, in fact, work against the general interests of participation in the WG by "turning-off" people who tire of a non-progressing discussion.

Although the vote on approval of the draft PAR has not yet closed, it appears headed towards approval. (Voting members who have not yet submitted their vote, please do so ASAP as we still have the super-majority requirements that must be met.)

Those who believe that organizational entity membership is the best way to go, need to prove it in the context of the P1800 work and the SystemC WG (which appears to be headed in the same direction). Until success is achieved in a familiar and known project, skepticism will prevail and inertia will tend towards the process and organization people are already familiar with.

The WG is about to make a commitment. One must assume that the members believe that the organization that is in the process of approval will provide the desired results (a market-relevant standard supported by tools, education/training, etc.). No one wants to repeat VHDL '93.

-Steve Bailey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org
> [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Gabe Moretti
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 6:23 AM
> To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote: Motion to Approve
> Draft PAR Submission
>
> 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> >
>
Received on Wed Jul 21 08:13:38 2004