RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Hello Jim,

> I liked the comment attributed to
> Oz: "DASC is a collection of people of long standing in
> EDA and with expertise in standards development." I'll
> probably vote yes on #1 for basically just that reason:
> Here's a bunch of people who have a lot of experience
> and expertise, and it'd be a good idea to keep them
> working together. I have developed a lot of respect
> for the principals over the years.

It is difficult to understand your reasoning
which seems quite contractictory to me.

Obviously the increased membership fee will discourage
people from participating in the future.

If we really value the contribution of these experts,
we should not give them the message "pay up or you are out".

Respectfully

        Wolfgang Roethig

> X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda.org: majordom set sender to
owner-stds-dasc@eda.org using -f
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: RE: Review of DASC membership fees
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:34:38 -0500
> X-MS-Has-Attach:
> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
> Thread-Topic: Review of DASC membership fees
> Thread-Index: AcTK1KUcRfgcoM1dT/etHUl1r1hSJgASn5DA
> From: "Jim Vellenga" <vellenga@cadence.com>
> To: <stds-dasc@eda.org>
> X-Received: By mailgate.Cadence.COM as GAA08866 at Mon Nov 15 06:34:09 2004
> X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.74, clamav-milter version 0.74a on
server.eda.org
> X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.74, clamav-milter version 0.74a on
server.eda.org
> X-Virus-Status: Clean
> X-Virus-Status: Clean
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by server.eda.org id
iAFEYeLS010032
> X-Scanned-By: SKYnet 2.0
>
> The comments of Michael and others make it clear that
> the effects of corporate membership on DASC policies
> and procedures has not been thought through with any
> clarity. Unless that changes, I too will have to vote
> negative on #2.
>
> As for the fee raise for individual memberships, people
> have been raising some good issues. DASC-SC is
> not unaware of these issues, since their minutes show
> their own efforts to define what usefulness remains
> in DASC itself. I liked the comment attributed to
> Oz: "DASC is a collection of people of long standing in
> EDA and with expertise in standards development." I'll
> probably vote yes on #1 for basically just that reason:
> Here's a bunch of people who have a lot of experience
> and expertise, and it'd be a good idea to keep them
> working together. I have developed a lot of respect
> for the principals over the years. But clearly we are
> getting diminishing returns out of DASC itself for the
> reasons others have cited.
>
> Regards,
> Jim Vellenga
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> James H. Vellenga 978-262-6381
> Engineering Director (FAX) 978-262-6636
> Cadence Design Systems, Inc. vellenga@cadence.com
> 270 Billerica Rd
> Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179
> "We all work with partial information."
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ] -----Original Message-----
> ] From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org
> ] [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Michael McNamara
> ] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 12:31 AM
> ] To: Peter Ashenden
> ] Cc: stds-dasc@eda.org
> ] Subject: 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 Mon Nov 15 10:31:40 2004