RE: [vhdl-200x] Announcement

From: Bailey, Stephen <SBailey_at_.....>
Date: Wed Jul 06 2005 - 06:38:55 PDT
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 Lavelle 
Received 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