RE: DASC membership fees - an alternative roadmap for the future

John,

The consensus of the DASC-SC is that it is worth meeting face-to-face four
times per year. I am prepared to abide by that consensus.

Cheers,

PA

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
PO Box 640                                   Ph:  +61 8 8339 7532
Stirling, SA 5152                            Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
Australia                                    Mobile: +61 414 70 9106
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf Of John Michael Williams
> Sent: Thursday, 5 August 2004 00:07
> To: stds-dasc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: DASC membership fees - an alternative roadmap 
> for the future
> 
> 
> Hi Peter.
> 
> Peter Ashenden wrote:
> 
> > John,
> > 
> > I suspect that there is a difference in understanding of what 
> > "editing" means.  If you are thinking just of formatting and minor 
> > copy-editing, such as is done by IEEE staff, your view is 
> fine.  What 
> > Jim and Shalom are referring to, technical editing, is taking the 
> > (relatively) informal specifications developed by a working 
> group and 
> > crafting LRM text.  That requires deep understanding of the 
> technical 
> > aspects of the standard, as well as "text-engineering" 
> skills.  It is 
> > a significantly larger job that can be expedited by funding it.
> > 
> > Regarding my view on travel: The consensus is that face-to-face 
> > meetings are far more productive than telecons or emails.  
> That is why 
> > IEEE does reimbursement of travel expenses.  I don't travel for the 
> > fun of it.  Where I can, I combine travel for IEEE with travel for 
> > other reasons and split expenses.  I certainly don't view travel 
> > expenses as a form of salary, and have never claimed more 
> than actual 
> > expenses.  (Usually I'm out of pocket due to exchange-rate 
> variation 
> > and forex costs.)
> 
> No real problem here, but is the advantage of face-to-face 
> really worth $2,000 (or, whatever) per encounter?
> 
> I agree there is an advantage, but is it possible to
> quantify it?  Do you think a request to try to quantify it
> is reasonable?
> 
> I would very much to meet face-to-face every time.  I like 
> meetings face-to-face, but my individual opinion is that it 
> just doesn't add enough to justify all the hassle of air 
> travel, conflicts with other obligations, lowered quality of 
> other work, and generally lost time.
> 
> -- 
>                           John
>                       jwill@AstraGate.net
>                       John Michael Williams
> 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > PA
> > 
> > --
> > Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
> > Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
> > PO Box 640                                   Ph:  +61 8 8339 7532
> > Stirling, SA 5152                            Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
> > Australia                                    Mobile: +61 414 70 9106
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org
> >>[mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf Of John Michael Williams
> >>Sent: Wednesday, 4 August 2004 16:06
> >>To: stds-dasc@eda.org
> >>Subject: Re: DASC membership fees - an alternative roadmap 
> >>for the future
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi Jim.
> >>
> >>Jim Lewis wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>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
> >>
> >>My estimates are for perfect work, better than we get now from IEEE 
> >>assigned editorial assistants.  Paying high salaries for nothing 
> >>breeds contempt and causes lowered standards of quality, as we have 
> >>seen in the news concerning overpaid and thus dishonest high-level 
> >>managers of major corporations.
> >>
> >>
> >>>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?
> >>
> >>It should not be spent.  It should not be collected; in
> >>other words, the dues should be lowered if the money collected
> >>is not spent on standards.   One should not assume that
> >>the money HAS to be spent.   Maybe keeping one year's
> >>overpayments in the bank, unnecessarily high dues should
> >>be lowered.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>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.
> >>
> >>We still don't know whether the present chair wants to
> >>travel. Why is it earning our support, to be forced to travel 
> >>long distances under conditions of partial anoxia on 
> >>airplanes, to attend a meeting which could be attended by 
> >>conferencing?
> >>
> >>I think you are implying that paying for travel is sort of
> >>an earned salary due to the Chair.  This is supposed to
> >>be an unpaid, uncompensated, volunteer organization,
> >>and I would say we should not be making exceptions.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Cheers,
> >>>Jim
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>                          John
> >>                      jwill@AstraGate.net
> >>                      John Michael Williams
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
>