RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Evan, All,

On a light note, I am impressed with the attempts to figure out the intent
and motives. If some of us worked at the right profession the US security
would be guarantied :)

On a lesser lighter note: there is no conspiracy. Peter's suggested fee
increase and entity membership format and the 'budget' I provided are not
orchestrated to support each other. Also, DASC membership is what it is: a
FACT, not a 'fact'. I did not make things up. If you do not trust my data go
look at the membership roster on the website.

Seriously now:

I think entity based working group and ballots are very useful. That is the
best way to take business interest into consideration when a standard is
created. At the same time individuals are essential mix of the technology of
standards. Technical experts are required to ensure a standard is feasible
and implementable.

I also think that DASC does need a realistic budget. Is it $45K or not? I
agree that it is debatable but $0 is not the right number. There are costs
and it is unfair to ask some one else to bare the cost just because some of
us don't want to. I think EVERY participant in DASC derives a direct or
indirect value from his or her membership. If they tell you otherwise they
are not being honest with themselves. I think the question to be asked is
"what value?"

 Another point (some what disjoint) is that, in my opinion, while DASC
should support entity participation and ballot, we don't need to have an
entity membership class. I think doing so now will only put us in
competition with SA corporate membership. I would suggest that we co-opt the
entity membership of SA to our benefit and allow any and all corporate
entity members to participate and ballot DASC sponsored PARs.

In my view DASC has a value: it is a group of individuals that are
knowledgeable about EDA and standards. We should capitalize on this
strength.

Proposal:

Keep membership in DASC limited to individuals. Increase individual fees
(annual) to the range of $300-$500. We can expect the number of participants
to drop by at lease a 1/3 (70-110) or more. Even at the low end of the
scale, DASC membership dues will amount to some $20K a year. While this is
not in line with the 'budget', I think we will have more credibility asking
for help (meeting rooms, equipment, etc) when we have taken some steps to
account for our real expenditures. I would also suggest other classes of
membership: 5 year membership at 30% discount and life membership capped at
$5000. DASC should have provisions to allow for membership at reduced cost
for individuals that need such help.

At the same time, we should allow DASC to support (sponsor) WG that are
entity XOR individually balloted provided that entities are members of SC
corporate.

-Oz.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Evan Lavelle
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 2:02 AM
To: stds-dasc@eda.org
Subject: Re: Review of DASC membership fees

Oz, thanks for the figures.

(1) Your budget assumes:

Corporations: ~16

Over 1B: 9

Over 100M: 3

Over 10M 4

Individuals: ~45

Even with these assumptions, and individuals paying $200, you only get

$34K, not $45K. With individuals paying $40, you only get $27K.

(2) Who are the 9 companies with revenues over $1B? The entire EDA

industry is only worth $4B, and only *2* companies have revenues at

about $1B. Your potential revenues, using Peter's suggested

subscriptions, seem to me to be *way* out.

(3) You make the point (at length) that DASC is dominated by tool

providers, and this 'fact' is presumably used to justify the proposed

fee structure. However, this is basically wrong; it's not that simple.

You only name 4 providers: the top 3 and Verisity. However, the

presentation doesn't take into account that the 54 Verisity members are

a single-interest group: they have joined as individuals, to get 1647

through. If they'd started a year later, they'd have gone through on the

CAG, and we'd have 1 or 2 Verisity members, not 54. If you exclude

Verisity, you get a much clearer picture, which indicates to me that

DASC is essentially individual-driven: Synopsys 14, Cadence 17, Mentor

8, other vendors 16, the rest of us 40.

(4) Not your area, I know, but nobody has yet, after what seems to be an

eternity of discussions, made a business case for entity membership. Is

anyone even going to try? As I said in my last mail, it's completely

pointless having this discussion until that case has been made and

accepted. If the DASC can make that case, then you can charge the

providers whatever you want.

Evan
Received on Fri Jul 23 10:24:12 2004