Re: Accellera and DASC

Evan,
I would like you to point out how any of the articles I wrote are factually
wrong. It is time you and a few others get a life and start basing your
opinions on facts and not wishful thinking. I have not seen you much around
the IEEE, DASC, or any other organizations that could have provided you with
valuable information in arriving at your conclusions. So far anything
written about the situation by members of the 1364 WG, including the "book"
by Stu Sutherland in eedesign, has not had the benefit of the big picture of
the conditions surrounding and motivating the decision by the Accellera BoD.
The Computer Society and Peter Ashenden are working very hard, together with
the IEEE-SA and Accellera, to correct the fundamental issues that brought
about this situation, and the solution will be forward looking, not an
futile exercise in reversing the clock. Further recriminations by
uninformed individuals, no matter how well intentioned, do not help. I was
working for the betterment of the IEEE, and the EDA industry, most likely
before you even had to know that not all gates have hinges, so please do not
shoot off your mouth with disinformation and generalities.
Now for the information you so earnestly desire:
I was one of the three persons that worked on and executed the merger of VI
and OVI that created Accellera, because at the time I was the Chairman of
VI. Since I no longer work for a corporate member of Accellera, I have no
formal connection with that organization and have not had it for the last
four years. I am still a member of DASC and its two last chairs have, from
time to time, consulted me on some of the issues and problems that have
faced the organization in the recent past. Members of the Accellera Boards
have also discussed long range plans with me from time to time. I am a
member of Nescom, I have been appointed to the position for the last three
years. I am also a senior member of the IEEE, and an appointed member to
the Exhibitors Liaisons Committee of DAC.
OK, now you know all of my "nefarious" connections and subversive
relationships that help me so much in practicing my "yellow" journalism.
May be you and everyone else in DASC should tell this email group what their
interests and connections are, including any direct or indirect financial
benefits they may derive from participating in DASC work.
Let me also point out that Steve Bailey omitted, because he had no direct
knowledge of it, that both OVI and Accellera hired a technical writer and
editor to develop the Verilog standards as a "volunteer" of the 1364 WG.
Gabe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Evan Lavelle" <anti.spam1@dsl.pipex.com>
To: <stds-dasc@eda.org>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Accellera and DASC

> Bailey, Stephen wrote:
>
> > Evan,
> >
> > I'm sure Peter will provide detailed information and/or correct me if
> > I have gotten any of the information below wrong or it is incomplete.
> >
> >
> > I'd like to know what questions/issues motivated this email?
>
> The primary motivation was Gabe Moretti's recent series of articles for
> EDN (the last one is at
>
<http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA425604?industryid=2813&nid
=2017&rid=1470711747>).
>
> These are clearly biased and can only serve to undermine the DASC.
> However, Gabe consistently omits to mention his connection with
> Accellera. This is an issue for us, since he is also a DASC and a NesCom
> member.
>
> The second motivation is, of course, the upcoming SystemVerilog PAR. We
> need to know what the agenda is before this is pushed through.
>
> > Accellera membership is corporation/organization based. It's
> > membership list is published at:
> > http://www.accellera.org/member.html. Only corporate members are
> > eligible for Accellera board membership.
>
> There doesn't appear to be a list of Accellera officers at
> accellera.org. As far as I know, both Dennis Brophy and Gabe Moretti,
> and possibly other DASC members, have positions within Accellera. I
> don't have any objections to corporate connections with Accellera, but I
> do believe that we need to identify DASC and NesCom members with
> personal connections, paid or unpaid.
>
> Evan Lavelle
>
Received on Mon Jun 14 10:14:19 2004