All, I would add the following to Gabe's and Evan's comments: No one at DASC, CS or IEEE consciously made the decision to turn over standards development to Accellera. What happened is that Accellera saw a need for a better way to develop EDA standards than what was occurring in DASC. So, Accellera created a better way. I see 3 key improvements that Accellera made: 1. Entity (corporate) membership ensured that what is important to end users got done. This is what has been termed "market relevance." 2. Finances. Because companies are involved and not individuals, and as a check on market relevance, if it is important to the users, money will be found to make the standard happen. And then when it happens, more money is found to promote it. (Make it successful.) 3. Efficiency. The entire process is more efficient. Part of this is due to the fact that #1 and #2 ensure that only those things that are really important are done and that when they are done, funds are available to make it happen. But, it is also the part that many on this forum do not like: Making standards is somewhat analogous to making sausage. You may not personally like the political give-and-take involved, but it is necessary. Primarily, within Accellera end users have the power to make EDA vendors do what is best for the industry. (Or to put it another way, an EDA vendor cannot be successful promoting a position on a standard without significant end user support.) Inside DASC, the individual membership organization makes it difficult as the members only represent themselves and cannot be assumed to be promoting their company's interests. In Accellera, the positions of members are public to all. End user companies can hold EDA vendors accountable. Finally, the individuals who are representing their companies in Accellera have done a more efficient job in operating the organization. Sure, the DASC can improve here. But, it is because of the market relevance (importance to the member companies) that there is more visibility of what happens in Accellera. Therefore, the structure of Accellera helps to ensure greater efficiency. Now that Accellera has raised the bar, can the IEEE raise it further and provide a better environment for incubating standards development? Until something changes, do not expect the current trend to change. -Steve Bailey ________________________________ From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of gmoretti@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 5:01 AM To: vhdl-200x@eda.org Subject: 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 th e 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 effectivel y 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 LavelleReceived on Wed Jul 6 06:39:01 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 06:39:19 PDT