Subject: (no subject)
From: Alex Zamfirescu (hxml@pacbell.net)
Date: Fri Jun 13 2003 - 12:08:55 PDT
Dear Mr. Moretti (Gabe):
I see no harm to talk about real issues with our fellow
colleagues. What I like to read about are debates about
these issues. Any comments about persons involved in
discussion might not make much sense. After all we are
all professional experts and no one can be minimized
or personally criticized if he or she has the courage to
share his or her own thoughts.
After all there would not be such a big discussion if
the problems will not be there.
Those problems might include:
1. The fact that a language as VHDL can not benefit
from its powerful feature that is (sharing consensus standard packages) without
extra fees complications
(note that this restriction does not exist on
company de-facto standards made free). So how can a group
hold its moral high when it sees that its work is in vain due to
over restriction imposed by its own parent.
2. DASC is self maintained by member fees. However,
it is not clear that all funds benefit DASC. I have not seen
a financial report recently, but I see less then adequate
meeting facilities (where laptop screens are used for
displays instead of projectors) and I hear that DASC can
not accumulate funds over more than one year, losing
all what is accumulated at the end of the year if not spent.
How can an organization that is at the base of the progress
in technology run that way? Is it something to discuss here?
Dr. Willis tried to put "contrasting colors" on the
picture, but we should not attack him personally. If we can
debate his ideas only, the whole picture will be better.
Maybe my 30 years experience in dictatorial lead Romania
make me feel uncomfortable with attempts to stop debate
by putting the speakers in the shadow (sometimes cold places :-).
If that is the case please accept my apologies.
Kindest regard,
Alex Zamfirescu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul J. Menchini" <mench@mench.com>
To: <stds-dasc@eda.org>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:02 AM
> Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.101])
> by server.eda.org (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id h5D1wacF026172
> for <stds-dasc@dasc.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from Gabesmoretti@aol.com
> by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36.3.) id x.152.204d8350 (3866);
> Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:58:25 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Gabesmoretti@aol.com
> Message-ID: <152.204d8350.2c1a89c0@aol.com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:58:24 EDT
> Subject: Re: Electronic Standards Delivery Issue
> To: john.willis@ftlsys.com, Jim@synthworks.com, stds-dasc@server.dasc.org
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_152.204d8350.2c1a89c0_boundary"
> X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6014
>
>
> --part1_152.204d8350.2c1a89c0_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Dear Dr. Willis (John please forgive the formalism but there are a number of
> "John" in this email thread):
> Although persons with more senior standing in the IEEE are on the
> distribution list of this email, they have, for their own personal reason,
decided to
> remain silent. I feel that I can no longer suffer this state of affair.
> I must say that I find your contributions to this email thread surprising and
> ill-advised. As the DATC chair you hold a responsible position in a Society
> which is part of the IEEE and in fact the parent of the DASC. As such, you
> should be familiar with the present business model of the IEEE, which is very
> similar to that of most SDO (Standard Development Organizations) that are not
> wholly dependent on government grants. Standards are sold to cover the costs
of
> supporting the structure required to manage the development, manafuacturing,
> distribution, and marketing of standards. You are also the Secretary of the
> DASC, and as such, you have the obligation to see the organization thrives
and
> grows, both in stature and in its financial well-being. Athough the IEEE is
> always working to modify and modernize its business model, at present the
sale
> of standards is a major factor in keeping the organization in business.
> It is easy to offer negative criticism; much harder to offer constructive
> suggestions. You have, unfortunately, chosen the first course of affair. As
> chair of the DATC you have not offered any constructive suggestion to help
the
> IEEE to modify its business model and still maintain the structure and income
> that makes it one of the most formidable organizations world-wide in the area
of
> professional standards.
> I would also caution you to consult the FDL System attorneys you are so fond
> of referring to, regarding derivative work from copyright material.
> Publications that can be found to be obvious derivative work from copyright
> publications, are subject to the original copyright restrictions. I, for
one, fail to
> understand how someone can produce a rendering of 1164 that is not an obvious
> "derivative work". Are either FTL Systems or its customers, so financially
> needy that paying for a standard constitutes a hardship? I reming you that
the
> IEEE offers a number of methods that would provide volume distribution of one
or
> more standard at very reasonable unit prices.
> You have indicated that, in your opinion, there are other industry
> organization that better fit your aims. May be you should consider using
them
> exclusively for your professional and financial purposes.
> Personally I never found pissing and whining to be a productive behavior.
> Gabe Moretti
>
> --part1_152.204d8350.2c1a89c0_boundary
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
> =3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">Dear Dr. Willis (John please forgive the formalism but=
> there are a number of "John" in this email thread):<BR>
> Although persons with more senior standing in the IEEE are on the distributi=
> on list of this email, they have, for their own personal reason, decided
to=20=
> remain silent. I feel that I can no longer suffer this state of affair=
> .<BR>
> I must say that I find your contributions to this email thread surprising an=
> d ill-advised. As the DATC chair you hold a responsible position in
a=20=
> Society which is part of the IEEE and in fact the parent of the
DASC. =20=
> As such, you should be familiar with the present business model of the IEEE,=
> which is very similar to that of most SDO (Standard Development Organizatio=
> ns) that are not wholly dependent on government grants. Standards
are=20=
> sold to cover the costs of supporting the structure required to manage the d=
> evelopment, manafuacturing, distribution, and marketing of
standards. =20=
> You are also the Secretary of the DASC, and as such, you have the obligation=
> to see the organization thrives and grows, both in stature and in its finan=
> cial well-being. Athough the IEEE is always working to modify and mode=
> rnize its business model, at present the sale of standards is a major factor=
> in keeping the organization in business.<BR>
> It is easy to offer negative criticism; much harder to offer constructive su=
> ggestions. You have, unfortunately, chosen the first course of affair.=
> As chair of the DATC you have not offered any constructive suggestion=
> to help the IEEE to modify its business model and still maintain the struct=
> ure and income that makes it one of the most formidable organizations world-=
> wide in the area of professional standards.<BR>
> I would also caution you to consult the FDL System attorneys you are so fond=
> of referring to, regarding derivative work from copyright material. P=
> ublications that can be found to be obvious derivative work from copyright p=
> ublications, are subject to the original copyright restrictions. I, fo=
> r one, fail to understand how someone can produce a rendering of 1164 that i=
> s not an obvious "derivative work". Are either FTL Systems or its cust=
> omers, so financially needy that paying for a standard constitutes a hardshi=
> p? I reming you that the IEEE offers a number of methods that would pr=
> ovide volume distribution of one or more standard at very reasonable unit pr=
> ices.<BR>
> You have indicated that, in your opinion, there are other industry organizat=
> ion that better fit your aims. May be you should consider using them e=
> xclusively for your professional and financial purposes.<BR>
> Personally I never found pissing and whining to be a productive behavior.<BR=
> >
> Gabe Moretti<BR>
> </FONT></HTML>
> --part1_152.204d8350.2c1a89c0_boundary--
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jun 13 2003 - 12:18:07 PDT