Subject: RE: A modification to the P1647 PAR
From: Brophy, Dennis (dennisb@model.com)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 09:41:01 PDT
Paul,
I can respect that you may elect to continue progress in the face of stale bylaws and potential fading memories. But my assertion on application of rules is based on my long-standing DASC membership and chair positions on several DASC working groups.
Accordingly, I would have expected a more cautious response. To maintain progress in the face of these issues calls into serious question the application of rule and order. I would have expected that you would have notified NesCom of these issues and requested that the VLSG PAR be withdrawn until all issues could be sorted out.
I respect that you fell back on something documented. And I understand that you have not been at all the DASC meetings the past 8 years and may not have the history of participation and knowledge. I have attended most of them, if not all, even when they were held in Asia, India, Europe and all over the United States.
Specifically, in my chair role for 1481 I was instructed by Victor Berman, past DASC chair, to tell all my study group participants and then working group participants that DASC membership was required for their votes to count. Certainly the DASC tradition of allowing all to participate was maintained, but when votes were taken, I was obligated to match voters with DASC membership. I did.
In 1996 the DASC voted and approved a change in membership requirements. This change can be found in the 1997 DASC membership application and serves as the written proof you seek. (Please see: http://www.eda.org/pub/dpc/dpcwg.archive/hm/0034.html)
In quote from that application:
"Membership in the DASC is the fundamental way in which to support
these activities. In 1996 and going forward, membership is a
requirement for voting privileges in any of the working or
study groups under the DASC. If you were a member in 1996,
and not a member for 1997, your voting rights will expire
on 1 April 1997."
Accordingly, I ask you as DASC chair to notify NesCom of our desire to withdraw the PAR from their current agenda until such time the votes within the VLSG can be certified as representing the membership of DASC.
Respectfully,
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul J. Menchini [mailto:mench@mench.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 7:49 AM
To: Brophy, Dennis
Cc: yaron@verisity.com; stds-dasc-sc@dasc.org;
vlang-l@verificationlanguage.org; mench@mench.com; j.haasz@ieee.org;
Gabesmoretti@aol.com
Subject: Re: A modification to the P1647 PAR
Dennis and all,
Note: In this email, I am speaking as the DASC Chair and not as a member
of the VLSG, although I am both. However, since the substance of this
discussion is mostly about the PAR and DASC procedures, I am wearing
only the DASC Chair hat in this email.
> I think are re-ballot by the VLSG and the DASC is necessary.
Let me come back to this.
> I object to the VLSG Chair making a unilateral decision to change the
> PAR without consent of the VLSG and the DASC. According I call for a
> re-vote by the VLSG and then by the DASC once that is completed.
Let me provide a bit of background. After approval of the PAR by DASC,
I submitted it to the NeSCom secretary. As is customary, NeSCom sent it
around to at least some of their members for a preliminary review, prior
to consideration by the committee as a whole.
We have, to date, received feedback from one NeSCom member. The
feedback we received indicated serveral points of concern. As I recall,
one issue regarded patents and copyrights, which I believe were
addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewer without needing any
changes to the PAR.
The other issue concerned the presence of a roadmap in the PAR, which I
recall was also discussed during the DASC vote. The reviewer indicated
that he felt that the presence of a roadmap indicating technical
direction for post-PAR work was inappropriate in the PAR.
The VLSG Chair and I discussed this issue, and the Chair agreed to
remove the roadmap from the PAR. At that time, he also asked me if I
felt that the change was substantative (therefore requiring a revote of
both the SG and the DASC-SC).
I felt that this was not a substantive change, and advised him that,
although I felt that a revote was not necessary, I advised him to
circulate it to both the SG and to the SC. My reasoning was as follows:
* As to the substantivity of the change: Since the roadmap discusses
post-PAR activities, its inclusion is basically non-substantive
commentary and therefore its exclusion does not change the substance
of the PAR, which is to describe the scope and purpose of the work to
be done during the lifetime of the PAR.
* As to the lack of need for recirculation: Based on my feeling that
the change was non-substantive and based on the fact that on other
PARs we've made other, non-substantive changes without reballoting
during the NeSCom acceptance phase, I felt that no reballot was
necessary.
* Regarding the advisory recirculation: Consistent with my practice on
those previous PARs where we've made what I felt were non-substantive
changes, as a courtesy to both the SG and SC members, in an effort to
maintain openness and transparency in all DASC processes, and also
recognizing that the substantivity of any change is certainly open to
discussion, I advised the VLSG Chair to recirculate the changes.
Although I would have chosen different introductory language (as his
statements certainly could leave the impression that the decisions
regarding both substantivity and the lack of need for reballot were
unilateral) he has consulted with me at every step and done as I've
suggested. Any concern about this process should therefore lie with
me and not with the VLSG Chair.
> 2nd VLSG CHAIR CHANGE
> =====================
> In my assessment, the change to the PAR is sustentative. If I not
> mistaken, the PAR which was submitted to NesCom via DASC must be
> approved by the working group and the sponsor. Without the inclusion
> of the roadmap information in the scope of the PAR, the PAR's meaning
> is altered in a substantive manner.
It is certainly your right to disagree with me on the substantivity of
the change, and given that you disagree, then the DASC-SC should
certainly reballot the PAR in its present form.
However, before the SC does so, perhaps we should await any input from
the VLSG on their feelings about the changes. If they also disagree
with my feelings that the changes were not substantive, then we should
let them ballot first and conduct the SC ballot only after
> My opinion is the PAR degenerates to the standardization of the
> proprietary 'e' language solely and rejects what I perceive to be the
> VLSG's desire to ensure that through the VLSG's standard's process the
> submission is open to changes or additions that the VLSG deems
> appropriate for the first version. (That is what the VLSG said they
> wanted.)
> Removing that wording from the scope changes what was approved by the
> VLSG and places into question if that can be considered during the
> standardization process. I believe a re-vote of the VLSG and then by
> the DASC is needed. I think an email to the reflectors in not
> sufficient proof of consent by either the VLSG or DASC.
If I understand your objection, then you desire that the roadmap
language be rewritten to be part of the work to be done during the
lifetime of the PAR. In my opinion, this change certainly would be
substantive, and so we should push this back upon the VLSG.
This course of action is certainly acceptable to me. If it also
acceptable to the SC and the VLSG, then we should proceed. However, if
we do proceed down this path, then I need to withdraw the present
submission to NeSCom. We have until 9 June to make the withdrawl
decision, so while things are not critical, we should come to consensus
on a course of action in relatively short order.
> VOTING IRREGULARITIES & DUES PAYMENTS
> =====================================
> The DASC has only 23 members that are eligible to vote in DASC
> sponsored work. Of the 261 that were eligible to vote for revision #1
> of the VLSG PAR, 207 voted. Of the 207 that voted only 2 are DASC
> members.
This is a different matter altogether.
> For a vote to be recognized in a DASC sponsored activity, you must be
> a DASC member. I am shocked to see the abuse of such a rule on this
> grand scale. The VLSG chair should resubmit the corrected vote tally.
> Paul, I also think the DASC Chair should certify that the DASC
> Steering Committee votes to approve promotion of this PAR to the IEEE
> need you to certify there were made by accredited DASC members.
Sadly, the published bylaws (http://www.dasc.org/bylaws.html) are not up
to date, and do not reflect the current bylaws--specifically regarding
this matter. I do recall that we changed the bylaws a few years ago to
require that voting members of "DASC member groups" also be DASC
members. I use the term "DASC member groups" rather than a more
specific term, because as I recall the rule applied only to DASC working
groups and was silent with respect to DASC study groups. From your
statement above, I beleve that you believe that the requirement also
applies to DASC SGs. If anybody can dig out the email and the actual
bylaw changes, we can certainly resolve this matter.
Note that, consistent with my understanding of this requirement, I have
advised the VLSG Chair that, once they become a WG, their voting
membership can be drawn only from current DASC members.
> The rule is DASC membership requires a $50 payment. If the payee is
> not an SA member, we pay their SA fee. If they are an SA member, the
> DASC membership fee is $40. In recent message from the DASC chair,
> chairs of DASC sponsored activities were reminded of the need for DASC
> membership. I think the voting record provided to the DASC
Your statements here are consistent with my understanding (excepting the
last, incomplete sentence, for which there is not enough information for
me to either agree or disagree); however, again the published bylaws are
out of date wrt this matter.
> If this is not corrected, then the integrity of the IEEE processes and
> the DASC are placed into serious question of abuse and manipulation.
> I propose that a DASC meeting be held immediately after the VASG
> meeting on Friday at DAC. This issue needs to be discussed and
> addressed as soon as possible.
As I will not be at DAC, can I ask that you work with the DASC Vice
Chair, Peter Ashenden, to arrange this meeting? I will do what I can
from here to assist.
Thanks for your willingness to raise your concerns and to assist in
resolving them.
Regards,
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri May 23 2003 - 09:55:34 PDT