RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Here is my 2 paise worth:

>> Keep membership in DASC limited to individuals. Increase individual
fees (annual) to the range of $300-$500.

The fees has to be tied with the value a person receives (of course each
person values the value differently). If you charge more, is the person
getting more value? With many of the current proposed standards, the
"value" of an individual is being reduced - since only entities may vote
on the features of a standard. So how can you expect a person to pay
more when his /her value is being reduced?

So, I think we are putting the cart before the horse by suggesting
higher DASC fees. First , we should propose how DASC individual members
can contribute to the development of a standard which is "entity-based".
Once people see the value of this, they will pay whatever is necessary
if they feel they are getting

their "values" worth. Would DASC individual members have voting rights?
Can they call for a motion to be made? Would the contributors be
acknowledged in the standard? Can a DASC individual member hold an
officer position in the WG?

regards,

- bhasker

  _____

From: Oz Levia [mailto:Oz.Levia@synopsys.com]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 1:24 PM
To: stds-dasc@eda.org
Cc: stds-dasc-sc@eda.org
Subject: 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 12:35:43 2004