RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Jim,

  If everyone took the position you and Mac asserted, the VHDL team
itself would not be the beneficiaries of others who do not think like
you.

  If you ever wondered what the cost to operate and manage eda.org is,
you will find that the proposed DASC budget would have a hard time
covering it. Yes, eda.org runs with a combination of donated labor,
talent and time along with paid services. The VHDL team nor the DASC
has never been asked to carry its own weight. (By the way, Accellera
has no issue with supporting eda.org.)

  So, as you rush to support such parochial ideas I would suggest one
might also want to think about what one can do for ones self. I think
that is the essence of DASC membership and budget proposal. It is a
proposal of self-reliance and independence.

-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 5:57 PM
To: stds-dasc@eda.org
Subject: Re: Review of DASC membership fees

Steve,
I am glad you see Mac's point because that is what
set me off in the first place. From a greatly
simplified point of view:

   As a VHDL standards participant,
   I don't want to financially support the administration
   of SystemVerilog by DASC if the corporate members of
   SystemVerilog are not financially supporting DASC.

Some funding must come from corporate members of DASC co-sponsored
groups. Whether this comes from membership or whether membership is
automatic and it comes from an accessment is up to DASC-SC, but to make
a decision on item 2, we need to see a more wholistic proposal.

Regards,
Jim

> 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
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Lewis
Director of Training             mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com
SynthWorks Design Inc.           http://www.SynthWorks.com
1-503-590-4787
Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~