Re: Review of DASC membership fees

Hi Mac! Looking at the date and times you are correct. I thought I had
filed old email to the reflrctor and this was fresh. Hard to carry on
an email conversation when I am few days and 10's of messages behind. It
is like a packet out of order: it should be rejected.

Thanks for pointing out some reading I need to do!

Whatever we do, we agree, we should not harm it, we should only help it.

-Dennis

--
Dennis Brophy                                Email: dennisb@model.com
Director of Strategic Business Development   Phone: +1 503-685-0893
Mentor Graphics Corporation                    Fax: +1 503-685-0923
8005 Boeckman Rd, Bldg E-4                  Mobile: +1 503-706-8987
Wilsonville, OR 97070-7777                Home Fax: +1 503-579-2664
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael McNamara <mac@verisity.com>
To: Brophy, Dennis <dennisb@model.com>
CC: Jim Lewis <Jim@synthworks.com>; stds-dasc@eda.org
<stds-dasc@eda.org>
Sent: Fri Nov 19 13:45:50 2004
Subject: RE: Review of DASC membership fees
I recognize that there has been a lot of words here, and that Dennis,
perhaps it is likely that you haven't read them all :-) :-)
The point that I made and that Steve got, and that Jim was happy that
Steve got, is that the two motions, if passed, would result in a fee
structure where DASC would receive a lot less money than it received
this year (which was woefully inadequate), and indeed much less money
than it would need in order to operate.
This is bad.
DASC needs to find sources of money sufficient for it to perform its
tasks, particularily by charging its members, particularly its
corporate members, enough money so that it has enough cash to be
effective.
Neither you nor I was at the DASC-SC meeting where these motions were
drafted; and I like to believe that had one or the other of us been
there, we would have recognized the structural problems, and brought
them up, and got them corrected.  Perhaps not...  :-)
It is entirely possible that the desire of the committee was to craft
a set of motions to do this adequately fund the DASC.
Perhaps they believed that they did.  
I, reading the motions, see no structure where a corporation would
feel a requirement to pay DASC anything, as that corporation could pay
the same money to IEEE-CAG and get the IEEE-CAG benefits, AS WELL AS
the DASC corporate member benefits.
This should be fixed before approving the motions.
-mac
-- On Nov 19 2004 at 13:11, Brophy, Dennis sent a message:
 > To: Jim@synthworks.com, stds-dasc@eda.org
 > Subject: "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
 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 >