DASC Team:
This discussion is leading this volunteer organization to extinction.
The purest never invented, never developed, and never produced. You need
the money and the power/influence of the EDA industry. If you loose
that, then membership will dwindle, product (proposed standards/updates)
will go down, and no one will be een interested in using what you
produce. We will go back to before the VHSIC/VHDL standards when every
vendor of EDA tools had his own product supported by internal
documentation that was intentionally done to keep the other guy away
from the unlucky customer they caught in their Net of misleading adds
and false promises. Lord Have Mercy!
WAHanna
William A. (Bill) Hanna
Boeing SDB Programs
Boeing Technical Fellow-Advanced Avionics
MC S500-3100 Phone: 636-925-4802
St. Louis, MO 63166-0516 Fax: 636-925-3327
E-mail: william.a.hanna@boeing.com <mailto:william.a.hanna@boeing.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Oz Levia [mailto:Oz.Levia@synopsys.com]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 12:24 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 13:26:56 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 23 2004 - 13:27:17 PDT