Re: Review of DASC membership fees

John,
      I agree with you that when you are an individual member working for a
company you must represent the IEEE first and your employer second. The
companies that reimburse their employees for IEEE membership all know this
and this ordering of allegiance makes for a better organization. What I'm
afraid of is if companies are allowed to pay substantial fees to join they
will be constantly measuring what they get in return, as good business
practices dictate. They are constantly pushing their agenda whether or not
it is best for the industry as a whole. I believe with individuals
representing companies where the individual's first allegiance is to the
IEEE eliminates most of this expectation. This results in standards that
are better for the industry as a whole which in a strange way results in a
better standard for the companies that support their representatives.

Thanks,
 John B.

Phone: 1-845-892-4212
Fax 1-845-892-2066
email jbeatty@us.ibm.com

|---------+---------------------------->
| | John Michael |
| | Williams |
| | <jwill@astragate.|
| | net> |
| | Sent by: |
| | owner-stds-dasc@e|
| | da.org |
| | |
| | |
| | 07/26/2004 04:25 |
| | PM |
| | Please respond to|
| | stds-dasc |
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | |
  | To: stds-dasc@eda.org |
  | cc: |
  | Subject: Re: Review of DASC membership fees |
  | |
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Harry.

Harry Beatty III wrote:

>
>
>
> John and Bill,
> I do not support OZ's proposal to recognize CAG corporate entities
> for a couple of reasons:
> ...

The only benefit I can see is that if individual members
were allowed to declare themselves as representatives of
their employer, this would be an open admission of bias,
much the way lobbyists are required to register.

There's nothing wrong with standing up for ones employer,
but it should be done openly. Allowing a WG or DASC
member to join as an "entity" representative might be one
way of accomplishing this.

Possibly, the DASC or a WG should be allowed to hold
a vote and declare certain member(s) "entity" members, based
on statements or other behavior at meetings?

Keep in mind that representing ones employer is not an
engineering activity.

--
                          John
                      jwill@AstraGate.net
                      John Michael Williams