(no subject)

The cost does not include just the typing part. It includes attending
the meetings where it is decided what, how and why to revise. It
includes doing the revision text both in a format which is
acceptable to the IEEE and which has a meaning that is not in conflict
with other parts of the LRM.

In other words, the editing of the LRM could be excellent or it
could introduce more errata than it fixes problems. With less than
$150,000 over two years it is unlikely that the result of the editing
work would be of the required quality. Of course, just spending the
money does not guarantee it either. With $200,000 over two years the
editor is expected to also represent the glue that brings together all
the contributions to the LRM and the engine that will drive teh
detailed work, such as reminding people of items which are missing on
the agenda, etc.

Best regards,

Alec Stanculescu

> John,
> > Editting a VHDL Std ms from 0 would take about 2 weeks to
> > type up, and maybe two weeks' back-and-forth revisions,
> > bottom line, total equivalent full-time work. Even Std
> > 1384 would be no more than a month's work, TOTAL.
> >
> > Where does $200K for a month's work come from? Or, am
> > I misreading what you wrote?
>
> This is money over a couple of years for the VHDL-200X
> family of revisions. I am not the editor. I did not
> do the estimate. However, I am not shocked by the number.
> I suspect that your estimate is off some.
>
> I suppose that we could lower our quality metric and
> write the standard as best as we can given the time and
> money available and let the vendors and the WG help sort
> out the implementation issues and inconsistencies.
> This has not been the VHDL way in the past.
>
>
> > If I read yours above correctly, I am getting VERY concerned
> > about carelessness in estimating costs and spending
> > money. Dues money belongs to the members, and
> > it should be spent on their behalf, for their
> > benefit.
>
> Currently your dues do not fund WG efforts.
> If the membership dues is not spent on developing
> standards, then what should it be spent for,
> more infrastructure overhead?
>
> > Also, so far as I can see, noone even asked Peter whether
> > he WANTS to travel to meetings. Why are you assuming he
> > should be funded for this? Not travelling would save quite
> > a bit of money and this could go to lowering dues.
> Actually my position is that if Peter wants to travel
> to meetings and the sole purpose of the trip is DASC or
> DASC-SC business, then I do not object to paying for the
> travel. Peter has earned our support.
>
> If this is really a hot button for you, you should make
> sure to work to elect a person whose travel will be
> funded by their company.
>
> Cheers,
> Jim
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Lewis
> Director of Training mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com
> SynthWorks Design Inc. http://www.SynthWorks.com
> 1-503-590-4787
>
> Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

In-reply-to: <41107BFD.4050707@SynthWorks.com> (message from Jim Lewis on Tue,
        03 Aug 2004 23:02:37 -0700)
Subject: Re: DASC membership fees - an alternative roadmap for the future
References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10408032323530.6607-100000@eagle> <41100AD0.2060202@SynthWorks.com> <411076AA.2000808@AstraGate.net> <41107BFD.4050707@SynthWorks.com>
--text follows this line--
Received on Wed Aug 4 10:33:19 2004