I know a fair bit about standards. I agree I don't like to
sit around and discuss how to solve problems: I prefer things
in writing. I think live meetings usually waste more time
than they are worth, when the goal is to write a document.
Thank you for taking the time for your instruction below,
though. I apologize if you were offended: I did try
to be a little cynical, but my real intention was to be
constructive.
I want to clarify WHY I replied the way I did, and I
hope you will agree:
I think the synth standard, as approved, was something we all now
have to live with. The comments during the approval process
REPEATEDLY stated that many features that SHOULD have been in
the standard would have to be postponed. Your comment below
also asserts this. The group COULD NOT incorporate them
in the document we now have as a standard. Please review
the comments, which sometimes are inconsistent and even
illogical. Some of the postponed statements really aren't
well defined.
I disagree that a public letter of praise should have been
circulated for this work. The result we have at
present should not be held up as an example of a good
standard.
READ THE messages which were circulated during approval!
Don't take my word for it.
There is a lot to be done yet. Although a consensus was reached,
most of the difference between what we had before approval
and after approval is not in the standard which was approved.
We had to approve two-prong plugs, because that's what GE
makes! We didn't want to make a standard of three prongs,
because . . . ? Why? (in this silly metaphor)
We have a usable standard, but in my opinion, it does not
represent something to be held as an example of what the IEEE
should be capable of doing.
One realizes the social value of praise, having sat for
a good consensus, but such praise should not be used to
create a paradigm where one is not justified.
Please read below.
--
John
jwill@pacbell.net
John Michael Williams
Ronald Waxman wrote:
>
> To the DASC:
>
> I would like to add my "well done" to Victor's appreciative note.
> Apparently, John Williams does not have a real understanding about
> what the standardization process is all about. To wit:
>
> John Williams says,
> >>>>
>
> In reality, I doubt Victor ar anyone else can identify more
> than 10%
> in the standards approved which were NOT rephrasings or
> reaffirmations
> of functionality already implemented in currently existing
> EDA tools.
>
> <<<<
>
> The standardization process demands that a standard be representative
> of current processes. Standards do not lead one into new territory,
> but capture the essence of what the industry can do. Standards make
> order out of potential chaos by looking at the many solutions and
> coming up with a good cross-section that is acceptable to all. Making
> a standard is a consensus process.
Yes. And because over 10% of the content explicitly was
postponed, the standard IN ITS APPROVED form, which is what
you and Victor find praiseworthy, now requires changes to bring it
up to date. My great aggravation, the unusable and meaningless
Backus-Naur, looks pretty bad, at least to me.
The document has to be led into new territory. It is not in order.
The cross-section in the document was acceptable, but it
is not timely. It does not need new IDEAS; only statements of
what SHOULD be standard in a synthesis tool. Maybe my previous
Email was unclear on this.
Note: I am not criticizing the committee, the chair, or
the ballotting process. Just the result.
>
> John Williams says,
> >>>>
>
> My question is, why should we so glowingly praise the
> hardening
> of the arteries we so far have accomplished?
>
> My answer is indirect: Let's get over the need to show we
> know everything.
>
> <<<<
>
> The fact that some work was designated as "future" actually indicates
> that industry is not ready to reach consensus on those items. However,
> the identification of those areas provides a basis for industry to
> move forward from a defined base.
>
> Let's not knock down the good and difficult work that was accomplished
> by Bhasker and his group. They have put a stake in the ground where no
> standard existed before. We can move forward from there; as all
> standards are, and should be, a living object, at least in the EDA
> arena.
Yes, and I can stand it, too. But we already had an "industry
standard". Did we approve something we believed a good
standard for engineers to use as a guide for their work?
Grudgingly, I admit I didn't have to Email what you quoted
above. But, maybe criticism might lead to improvement--of me,
at least.
>
> Congratulations to the RTL team.
>
Thanks. ALthough I'm sure these last two Emails aren't
included.
> Ron Waxman
>
> ========================================
> At 11:04 AM 09/23/1999 -0700, John Michael Williams wrote:
> >Hi All.
> >> ... [deleted by jmw]
> >--
> > John
> > jwill@pacbell.net
> > John Michael Williams
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------->>>>
>
> Ronald Waxman r.waxman@computer.org
> EDA Standards Consulting voice: (+1)(703) 620-2117
> Principal Scientist at UVa, retired fax: (+1) (703) 620-6716
> 2369 Paddock Lane mobile: (+1) (703) 509-0372
> Reston, VA 20191-2607