Re: [vhdl-200x] Announcement

I would like to amend Evan's remarks.  The IEEE did not give away the EDA standards to Accellera.  The Computer Society did, and Accellera earned it.  The Computer Society dismal management of the DASC has in fact been one of the premier factors in the creation of the EDA Council within the IEEE in a belated attempt to plug the dike after the valley has been flooded.  Has any one ever considered how interesting it is that DAC is sponsored by the Circuits and Systems society and not by the Computer Society?  If the IEEE society that owns DASC is so disinterested in EDA, is it not logical that the IEEE would want to foster the develoment of standards using hat is today the most effective forum for such activity?  And, by the way, by not sponsoring DAC the Computer Society is loosing the opportunity for significant revenues that would have more than been sufficient to finance DASC.  Perhaps the EDA Council will find a way to regain the leadership in the standards development  field, but in the mean time tempus fugit and someone has to get the work done!
Gabe
-------------- Original message -------------- 

> Bailey, Stephen wrote: 
> > All, 
> > 
> > At its Board of Directors meeting at DAC, Accellera approved the 
> > formation of a working group for VHDL. The IEEE has provided Accellera 
> > permission to create derivative works based on 1076 as long as the 
> > derivative works are submitted back to the IEEE for standardization. 
> > First, I cannot overstate why I believe this development is good for VHDL. 
> 
> Well, I couldn't let this pass without comment. This may or may not turn 
> out to be 'good for VHDL', but it certainly marks the end of the road 
> for DASC. When 1647 goes over to Accellera DASC will be finished, period. 
> 
> What I find extraordinary is that, over the past couple of years, the 
> IEEE has effectively given away the EDA standards space to Accellera, 
> without seeing fit to even inform, let alone consult, the DASC members. 
> 
> I, for one, would like to know precisely which individual at the IEEE 
> has been responsible for this process, and what mandate they had to 
> carry this through. 
> 
> Evan Lavelle