RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Wolfgang & Jim's comments are indeed quite on the mark.

I have for the Chair three Questions of Clarification with respect to
the motions:

One the second motion, which reads:

" - DASC entity membership be extended to IEEE-SA Corporate members, and
    - entities be allowed DASC membership at the same fee structure used
      for IEEE-SA corporate membership and with a number of DASC individual
      memberships equal to the number of SA individual memberships granted
      to SA corporate members
      (see http://standards.ieee.org/sa-mem/corporate.html), and
    - the DASC request IEEE-SA to mutually extend membership to DASC entity
      members. "

It the intention of the second motion to make it so

  A) an entity which joins the CAG gets DASC membership at no
  additional charge; and one that joins the DASC gets CAG membership
  at no additional charge as well? Hence Really Big Corporation, Inc
  could decide to pay its multi thousand dollar fee to just one of the
  DASC, or the CAG, and there by get membership in both?

Or is it the intetntion

  B) that an entity that must pay $1,000 to the CAG would need to also
  pay $1,000 to the DASC as well to get DASC membership, and one that
  must pay $3,000 to the CAG must pay $3,000 to the DASC, and so on?

If it is A, then I fear we will set up a system where the paying
membership of DASC will become quite small, as corporations will pay
the DASC nothing (by joining CAG they get everything they would get
for joining DASC, plus free IEEE memberships for a half dozen
employees), and hence have voting privileges on the three entity
standards (PSL, SystemVerilog, 1364 Verilog).

Individual memberships next year have value only for participation on
VHDL, e, and ALF; and by raising the rate by 150% and reducing the
value (you can only join three committees instead of six), the ROI
gets pretty small. [Wolfgang was understating it; worst case it is a
5x increase in fees, assuming some standard loving chap served on all
six committees today, and hence paid 40/6 or $6.67 each; next year he
must pay 100/3 or $33.33 for each committee.] Worse, as entity
members get a half dozen of more free DASC individual memberships a
piece, they can place these people on these committees, gaining
substantial influence, without making any cash contribution. [Yes I
know that there were multiple VHDL committees this year, but I am
simplifying it for clarity]

So at the end of the day since corporate members pay nothing to the
DASC, and individual members have less incentive to join at the higher
rate and more limited purvue, it is clear that we will get much less
money to operate DASC.

If it is B, and entity members must pay dues to both committees, then
DASC will indeed raise a lot of money (at least $30,000). Because of
this it would seem less necessary to raise the fees so high on the
individual members, as again, this year for $40 they could participate
on any of six standards; next year for $100 they can only particpate
on any of just three standards. Further the extra muscle of the free
individual memberships dilute even further the value of the individual
membership. The extra 60 bucks per head for those unable to join at
the corporate level will be overwhelmed by the influx of funds from
the corporate members.

So, before I vote, I seek clarification on this question.

             ---

Question 2:

This bifurcation of the DASC also seems quite ungainly. Right now it
is clear that I am voting as an individual member of the DASC; because
we have not yet created corporate membership yet.

Assuming we do, what will be the relative voting privledges of an
individual DASC member, and a corporate member? We might have ten
corporate members and twenty individuals; and either have $2,000
budget, or a $32,000 budget, depending on the meaning of motion two.

Would we have 30 eligable voters? (20 individual, and 10 entity)? Or
would the half dozen individual memberships granted to each corporate
member also get to vote, resulting in: (20 + 10 + 60) 90 voters?

Assuming it is 30, would a vote put to the membership still require a
simple majority, and so 16 individuals, representing 53% of the
members, but just 5% of the cash contribution, be able to decide a
question?

Or would the half dozen or so free individual memberships granted to a
corporate member be also qualifed to vote on a matter put to question,
so 7 corporate members, with 7 votes each be able to decide any
question?

            ---

Question 3:

I would assume that even though I am an employee of a CAG member
company, I would have the right, and the obligation to join the DASC
as an individual, so that I could serve on the 1647 and/or 1076
committees, assuming that I am not given one of the corporate seats
granted to my employer.

Presumably then I could vote as an individual on a question put to the
DASC membership, while my employer is also voting on the matter,
correct?

-- On Nov 13 2004 at 10:47, Peter Ashenden sent a message:
> To: stds-dasc@eda.org
> Subject: "Review of DASC membership fees"
> Dear colleagues,
>
> The DASC Steering Committee reviewed the membership fees at its meeting on
> 12 November (see http://www.dasc.org/meetings/2004-11/.). This message is
> to ask you to review the recommendation and vote to approve the revised fee.
> There are two recommendations to review (see below). Would you please reply
> to me by email with your vote on each one. Since a 50% return is required,
> would you please vote even if only to abstain.
>
> The DASC-SC arrived at its recommendation by reviewing its operating
> expenses and other potential sources of revenue. Currently, the IEEE
> Computer Society funds our operating deficit to a reasonable amount. The
> DASC-SC considers this to be a revenue contribution. The DASC-SC will also
> seek contributions from other sources, including IEEE-SA and external bodies
> with an interest in DASC activities. The recommended membership fees seek
> to match these contributions.
>
> Would DASC members please vote on the following:
>
> 1. That the fee for individual members be $US100 from 2005 onwards.
>
> ____ Affirmative (comments optional)
>
> ____ Negative (no comment)
>
> ____ Negative (with comments...)
>
> ____ Abstain
>
> Comments: ...
>
> 2. That:
> - DASC entity membership be extended to IEEE-SA Corporate members, and
> - entities be allowed DASC membership at the same fee structure used
> for IEEE-SA corporate membership and with a number of DASC individual
> memberships equal to the number of SA individual memberships granted
> to SA corporate members
> (see http://standards.ieee.org/sa-mem/corporate.html), and
> - the DASC request IEEE-SA to mutually extend membership to DASC entity
> members.
>
> ____ Affirmative (comments optional)
>
> ____ Negative (no comment)
>
> ____ Negative (with comments...)
>
> ____ Abstain
>
> Comments: ...
>
> Thanks, and regards,
>
> Peter Ashenden
> DASC Chair
>
> --
> 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
>
>
Received on Sun Nov 14 21:31:38 2004