RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Steve, my problem with the motions is that by granting membership free
of charge in DASC to the entity members of IEEE-CAG, and to each of
the free IEEE-SA individual members of IEEE-CAG members, we will give
more than 85 people who otherwise would be paying the DASC membership
fee (and most could get their company to reimburse them) a free
membership.

[Corporations making a billion or more in revenue get 10 free
individual memberships in the DASC; corporations making more than 1
million but less than a billon get 6 free memberships, and those
making less than 1 millon get two free memberships].

[I get to 85 by estimating the revenue of Intel, Freescale, Infineon,
Synopsys, Mentor, Cadence, Verisity, Sun, Sunburst, Sutherland,
Fintronic, Jeda and Accellera, plus more];

Why should we leave this $8,500 uncollected (85 * $100)?

On top of that, shouldn't we also ask our corporate members to pay
some money to the DASC as well? As I recall, the arguments for
creating entity membership went along the lines that we needed to set
up a structure that would attract more funding for these important
standards activities.

However we are now being asked to approve a fee structure so that
corporations that are already a member of IEEE-CAG need not pay
anything to the DASC. Six or more of their employees also need not
pay anything to the DASC. This seems to be leaving a heck of lot of
money on the table.

I firmly believe that we should all contribute money to advance the
causes we work on. My problem is that these motions make it so 85
people get full participation rights (voting membership in the DASC)
without a requirement to paying ANYTHING to the DASC! Further entity
members of the IEEE-CAG are made members of the DASC without a
requirement to contribute anything to the DASC!

So is it correct that you and I agree in principle (everyone should
pay, and we need to collect enough to get the job done), but one or
the other of does not fully understand the motions?

(Hey it could be me who does not understand; but I don't think so).

-mac

-- On Nov 15 2004 at 14:26, Bailey, Stephen sent a message:
> To: stds-dasc@eda.org
> Subject: "RE: Review of DASC membership fees"
> All,
>
> > If we really value the contribution of these experts, we
> > should not give them the message "pay up or you are out".
>
> It has always been thus as far as DASC membership privileges. The only
> question is how much do you need to pay. As always, ANYONE can
> participate without paying any money to DASC. They just cannot vote.
>
> I have seen plenty of emails and once again the discourse has quickly
> jumped to hyperbolic. There are plenty of fallacies to extinguish.
>
> Only 3 WGs for which DASC membership provides value:
> All entity-based WG P&Ps are to be reviewed for the purpose of requiring
> individual participants to be DASC members. This would provide the
> desired orthogonality between entity and individual memberships.
>
> DASC/CAG entity membership:
> The wording is quite clear and there are no ambiguities. We cannot
> force SA to recognize DASC entity members as SA corporate members.
> However, it seemed reasonable to request such mutual recognition. In
> fact, I don't think anyone expects any entity memberships for DASC, but
> we felt it didn't hurt to provide that option (even without SA
> recognition).
>
> It is amazing to me how many people fall into one or more of the
> following categories:
>
> 1) Their companies do not reimburse for their DASC membership.
>
> 2) That well compensated engineers cannot afford $60 more per year.
>
> 3) That many believe that, in the abstract, DASC should have a budget
> and will spend a certain amount of funds to conduct its business. But,
> they shouldn't have to pay for it, someone else should. Oz presented a
> reduced budget to reflect concerns previously voiced.
>
> The bottom line is that without funds to conduct our business, we go out
> of business. If that is what you desire, then keep voting no.
>
> -Steve Bailey
>
Received on Mon Nov 15 16:22:09 2004