RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Mac,

It appears you are reading more into the motion than it actually states.
The motion does not say that the individual IEEE-SA members associated with
a corporate SA membership also get to be DASC individual members. The
motion as put only proposes that DASC entity membership be extended to
IEEE-SA corporate members.

Cheers,

PA

--
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Michael McNamara
> Sent: Monday, 15 November 2004 16:22
> To: Bailey, Stephen
> Cc: stds-dasc@eda.org
> Subject: 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
>  > 
>