RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Charles,

  The clause sited is part of the IEEE CS P&Ps, which is referenced by the DASC. I'm not sure if I understand what you mean in the first paragraph.

  If you read some of the other messages I've sent the other day, I also shared the desire of the IEEE to take into account the concerns of industry in the area of standards making in the establishment of the IEEE-SA and their stated purpose for formation.

-Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Charles Guy
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:19 AM
To: stds-dasc@eda.org
Subject: Re: Review of DASC membership fees

Dennis,

The below clause is part of the DASC. This clause seems to conflict with
the IEEE Computer Society of engineers.

Looking toward the bottom of this text I find your claim that the IEEE
Computer Society has entity membership has not been substantiated. Where
does the IEEE Computer Society offer entity membership?

It seems that the clause 4.7 below may be in conflict with the nature and
purpose of the IEEE and the Computer Society. Maybe this is the issue to be
considered by DASC. That is, should the DASC be offering entity membership
in an organization that is within an organization of professional engineers?

Charlie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brophy, Dennis" <dennisb@model.com>
To: <stds-dasc@eda.org>
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 12:40 AM
Subject: RE: Review of DASC membership fees

| Charlie,
|
| You can find working group membership for standards groups in the IEEE
Computer Society at http://www.computer.org/standards/orient/p&ptoc.htm.
Clause 4.7 has information on the two classes.
|
| It may be interesting to note that the VHDL group had considered
Individual, Entity and mixed Individual/Entity organization. Interestingly,
4.7.1 from the IEEE CS P&Ps does not allow this. It must be one or the
other, but not both.
|
| 4.7 Membership
| 4.7.1 Requirements:
| There are two types of membership for working groups or a sponsor
balloting body: Individual Expert and Organizational Entity. These are
mutually exclusive and decided upon at the PAR approval stage and remain
until the end of the project.
|
| You should also know that the IEEE CS SAB meeting in June discussed
changes to the IEEE CS SAB P&Ps such that they would remove language on
standards groups and defer to the IEEE-SA rules instead. (See
http://standards.computer.org/sabminutes/2004Spr/SAB_P_and_P.v4-2.doc for a
mark-up of these changes.)
|
| -Dennis
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Charles Guy
| Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 9:53 PM
| To: stds-dasc@eda.org
| Subject: Re: Review of DASC membership fees
|
| Dennis,
|
| Could you point me to the place where entities are allowed membership in
the
| IEEE cpmputer society? I went to the www.computer.org web site and did
not
| find a class of membership for entity. The only membership classes I
found
| were for member, affiliate, associate and student.
|
| Some member classes are non-voting classes like an affiliate.
|
| Charlie
| Charles B. Guy Voice (503) 628-0643
| Avsys Corp. FAX (503) 628-5401
| www.avsyscorp.com email cbguy@avsyscorp.com
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Brophy, Dennis" <dennisb@model.com>
| To: <stds-dasc@eda.org>
| Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 9:44 PM
| Subject: RE: Review of DASC membership fees
|
|
| | John,
| |
| | The IEEE Computer Society, under which the DASC is recognized, has
| membership defined as individuals and entities. Your statement that the
| DASC should be limited to individuals is not congruent with the sponsor's
| policies and procedures.
| |
| | -Dennis
| |
| | -----Original Message-----
| | From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf
| Of John Michael Williams
| | Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 12:59 PM
| | To: stds-dasc@eda.org
| | Subject: Re: Review of DASC membership fees
| |
| | Oz Levia wrote:
| |
| | > Evan, All,
| | > ...
| | >
| | > Proposal:
| | >
| | > Keep membership in DASC limited to individuals.
| |
| | I agree with this: IEEE is an organization of individuals.
| | Corporations can join EDAC or a similar group. If invited to "join"
DASC,
| they should get a free ride on the membership fees of the person(s)
| representing them.
| |
| | 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.
| | >
| |
| | I think the rest of this is totally out of line.
| |
| | DASC is about as big as five typical IEEE SA working groups. DASC-SC is
| smaller than most working groups.
| | Why should the DASC budget exceed that of a working group?
| | --
| | John
| | jwill@AstraGate.net
| | John Michael Williams
| |
| |
|
|
Received on Tue Aug 10 12:22:31 2004