RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Wolfgang,

  I have some comments to offer. In terms of $100 being too much, I
think we should remember that when we first set the price, we selected
$150. At that time, that amount was considered to be small - and that
was a decade ago. In time, we also grappled with the notion that
participation can be improved if we lower the fees. We then moved the
fee to $50 we ended up with about 27 members in 2003. It is odd, but I
have seen in most standards groups lower fees result in fewer
participants. We do appear to have more vitality and membership today,
which I don't think is related to the cost to be a member but the value
in participation.

  If cost is an issue for participation, I think it would be very
appropriate for the DASC to consider a certain percentage of
participants could be offered fee-free membership to cure the issue that
they don't have the money to spare.

  I think we have seen that market participants can support DASC
projects. The only question now is how can market participant underpin
the DASC operation. It is certainly less expensive to keep a healthy
DASC in operation than invent an independent consortia, but it is still
the case that consortia continue to popup all the time. I believe that
market participants also want some level of control and influence over
an organization. Via consortia, they can do this. Maybe each of the
projects under DASC could bear the cost to fund DASC administrative
overhead. Is that how you would want raise funds from market
participants.

  I certainly don't have the benefit of participation or being an
observer in the last DASC SC meeting, and I would be certain more
creative ideas were floated and actively discussed. I really don't want
to second guess the SC in this matter. But one point I have made from
time to time is benevolence from market participants is rarely a
long-term solution to funding needs. If you can connect business value
to DASC existence, you can get market participant support/funding.

  Maybe the DASC should tax the projects/working groups and study
groups. What do you think?

-Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Wolfgang Roethig
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 1:43 PM
To: Peter Ashenden
Cc: stds-dasc@eda.org
Subject: Re: Review of DASC membership fees

Hello Peter and all,

Please find my vote on the 2 items below.

1. That the fee for individual members be $US100 from 2005 onwards.

    ____ Affirmative (comments optional)

    ____ Negative (no comment)

    _X__ Negative (with comments...)

    ____ Abstain

    Comments:
The proposed 150% increase from $40 to $100 is unreasonably high.
It will not help solving the deficit, because it will discourage DASC
members from renewing the membership.
Furthermore, it will prevent people without sufficient funds from
joining DASC (e.g. students, self-employed or unemployed people, people
with lower income from other countries).
The voluntary technical contribution of such people provides a value to
DASC, so people should be encouraged instead of being unduly taxed.
As chairman of an IEEE WG and member of an EDA user company, I had the
priviledge to apprecriate the contributions of people thinking outside
the corporate box. We will be deprived from a pool of engineering and
scientific talent, if we seek financial compensation from the individual
contributors, in addition to the time and expertise they already
provide.
For the financial health of DASC, it is a far better idea to raise funds
from the market stakeholders through corporate sponsorship models.

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.

    __X_ Affirmative (comments optional)

    ____ Negative (no comment)

    ____ Negative (with comments...)

    ____ Abstain

    Comments: none

Best regards

Wolfgang Roethig, PhD
Senior Design Engineering Manager
NEC Electronics America
2880 Scott Blvd, Santa Clara CA 95050
Phone 408-588-5349
Fax 408-588-5434
email wroethig@necelam.com

Peter Ashenden wrote:

>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 Tue Nov 16 15:11:48 2004