RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Mac,

You have a reasonable point. I'll let Oz or someone else defend the
current proposal as it isn't mine and I don't feel strongly enough to
defend this aspect of it. Part of the problem is that SA has made
certain decisions that we need to, at least, acknowledge. But, that's
not a complete explanation.

-Steve Bailey

> 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 17:11:03 2004