RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Jim,

  As for ALF, the current project is now complete within the IEEE.
Further work to harmonize it with other formats and to collaborate with
other consortia is all being done in Accellera - where is being funded.
So maybe there are just two in your category.

-Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Jim Lewis
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 7:00 AM
To: stds-dasc@eda.org
Subject: Re: Review of DASC membership fees

Jim,
> 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.

What is the benefit of joining DASC if it is not to participate in one
of the working groups? Are the members of 1800 going to join DASC as
individual members if they have no interest in the other working groups?
The only conclusion I can reach is that the individual DASC membership
is for people participating in the non-corporate based standards groups:
VHDL, e, and ALF.

Regards,
Jim
Received on Tue Nov 16 15:11:54 2004