RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Charles,

  My reference to entity membership was in the context of standards making in the Computer Society. In this context, the Computer Society permits entity membership.

  This is found in the Computer Society's Standards Activity Board Policies and Procedures (CS SAB P&Ps), not the Computer Society Policies and Procedures (CS P&Ps). In the CS P&Ps you will find where it delegates this responsibility to the CS SAB. The CS SAB has its own P&Ps.

  These are the P&Ps I suggest should guide the content of the DASC's P&Ps and openness to entity participation.

  Specifically, the CS P&P Section 10 defines the CS Standards Activity Board and delegates responsibilities to make standards to that group. Within the CS SAB P&Ps in clause 4.7, entity and individual expert membership is defined.

  To examine this information for yourself, the following links will take you to the two P&Ps referenced.

CS P&Ps: http://www.computer.org/csinfo/PPM/ppmtoc.htm
CS SAB P&Ps: http://www.computer.org/standards/ORIENT/p%26ptoc.htm

  With this said, I did share additional information that the CS SAB is working to modify their P&Ps to align them with the IEEE-SA P&Ps that are the overall guide for standards groups within the IEEE. You can expect growing reliance on the IEEE-SA P&Ps and greater references in the CS SAB P&Ps to them.

Regards,

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Charles Guy
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:40 AM
To: stds-dasc@eda.org
Subject: Re: Review of DASC membership fees

Dennis,

Where in the IEEE CS P&P do you find membership in CS being defined as an entity??

Charlie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brophy, Dennis" <dennisb@model.com>
To: <stds-dasc@eda.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:22 PM
Subject: 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 Thu Aug 12 22:41:47 2004