RE: Review of DASC membership fees

Hi John,

> Bailey, Stephen wrote:
>
> >>I STILL don't see why DASC (or DASC-SC) should be more
> expensive than
> >>a WG to operate. I think there is a sort of
> corporate-ladder unspoken
> >>assumption that SC activities should be worth more than WG
> activities.
> >>I'm trying to point out that this should be false.
> >
> >
> > Anyone can take selective data and apply it. The P1800 WG has a
> > budget of $120k (this is after Accellera has already spent
> on order of
> > $150k or more). P1850 is looking at a possible budget
> around $50-70k.
> > I am trying to raise funds for 1076 on the order of >$100k.
> This does
> > not include any in-kind contributions of people's time, meeting
> > facilities and teleconference facilities. (And as Dennis
> has pointed,
> > most WGs are getting web hosting, etc. services that are
> paid for by
> > Accellera and equipment, time, etc. donated by others.)
> >
> > None of this is new information. It has been explained before that
> > some (generally but not exclusively smaller standards) can operate
> > with minimal budgets. But, you can't extrapolate that to all WGs.
> > Clearly, you continue to ignore the facts since your view
> of the world
> > conflicts with reality.
>
> Well, am I ignoring the rather controversial expense of
> hiring a contract editor at ~$100,000 to serve the WG? Has
> this slipped out of the "other universe"
> of Piscataway into our own?

Why is it controversial? VHDL was the 1st DASC standard. Every version
of the 1076 standard has had professional (contract) editor. I believe
the same is true for 1364. The IEEE has never paid for the editors.
The funding has come from industry. There's no controversy. What are
you trying to accomplish by attempting to assert there is one?

> > Based on this information, a budget of ~$20k for DASC is not
> > unreasonable as it is a fraction of the costs of the money
> going into
> > WG activities.
> >
> > -Steve Bailey
> >
>
> It might not be, or maybe it might be, unreasonable.
>
> The question, specifically, is what will the dues be spent
> on? According to the 12 Nov SC Minutes, almost all of it
> will be because of travel expenses, and lodging, etc.,
> associated with travel.
>
> All I'm doing is pointing out that travel expenses could be
> reduced to $0, with no clear impact on meeting efficiency,
> based on WG experience.

Respectfully, NO this is not all that you are doing. You are throwing
out red herring after red herring:

- Asserting all WGs operate on shoestring budgets when the facts clearly
show otherwise.

- Asserting that some controversy exists in that some WGs find it
necessary to hire dedicated technical editing resources to achieve their
objectives using funds donated from industry (or in the early days of
VHDL provided by the US government).

- More red herrings later in your post ...

> This is a specific point,

Yes, the size of the budget is a specific point and the one you state
you want to focus on. Let's review what the DASC has previously agreed
to and has re-affirmed:

1. We need to conduct in-person meetings from time-to-time. There are
benefits in doing so which we have recognized (though clearly not
unanimously recognized). I know from personal experience that
face-to-face meetings are more productive. The 1076 WG (fast-track
committee) recently had a face-to-face which resulted in greater
productivity than the telecons which have been occurring on a near
weekly basis.

2. That the DASC is responsible for standards that have international
impact. Therefore, it is reasonable and appropriate to meet once a year
in Europe and Asia. It is also very prudent to do so as it is a form of
publicity of the value that DASC is bringing to industry.

3. The previously mentioned web-hosting services will likely not remain
free.

4. Someone needs to pay for the telecon services. I believe that P1800
is also providing NetMeeting-type services as well which are not free.
So, even then there is a need for funding to cover operations. In fact,
we do provide telecon access for all DASC and DASC-SC meetings for those
who cannot attend in-person.

5. The DASC-SC had previously approved reimbursement for travel of the
chair and/or vice-chair, if needed and as reasonable. The DASC-SC
revisited this issue at the last meeting and re-approved the
reimbursement policy. Please note that it has been stated that a
benefit of this policy is to allow academics, contractors or small
business proprietors the ability to function as DASC-SC officers.
Otherwise, only employees of large EDA or standards-using companies will
be able to hold the positions.

> and citing
> a precedent of unusually high spending by some WG's might or
> might not be relevant. Would you expand on what these other
> WG's are getting for their $100,000+ budget expenditures? Is
> it all travel?

It is not my responsibility to justify any WG's budget or what they
spend it on except for the one for which I am the chair. In the case of
1076, it is to cover primarily technical editing services. However, it
is conceivable that as part of that contract, travel will be budgeted
for in-person review meetings of working drafts. Again, this is a red
herring and has nothing to do with the DASC budget. The DASC does not
coerce membership fees from WG Paul to pay for WG Peter's costs.

What is important is that no one is being coerced into providing these
funds. They are voluntary contributions.

> If the SC members and DASC officers are truly the creme of
> the crop, the most knowledgeable and experienced members of
> DASC, then why should it be difficult for them to raise the
> requested travel funding as donations from industry contacts?

Because we have determined that we'd rather have the chair spend their
time on DASC business and not conducting bake sales or performing other
fund-raising activities.

> Why should they have to exact a $100 payment by rote
> from the membership? Is this a creme of the crop
> performance?

You act like this is a totalitarian state. We have no ability to exact
any payment. People will voluntarily join or not. Again, I point out
that my annual Wall Street Journal subscription costs more but has less
direct impact on my career than DASC membership. If DASC membership is
not worth $100 to you or your employer, then don't pay it. Participate
as much as you want in various WG activities, but you won't have the
right to vote at the WG level or run for DASC officer positions.

> Stated otherwise, why shouldn't IEEE be contributing $100 out
> of every DASC member's IEEE membership to DASC? If this
> really represents an unavoidable expense?

More red herrings. I can equally ask why the State of Colorado doesn't
recognize my income tax payments so I don't need to pay sales tax.

> I don't want a "style of life" argument with you. It just
> seems that the persons in DASC responsible for DASC
> expenditures are not trying very hard to fulfill their
> obligations. Instead, maybe there is too much wish fulfillment.

Quite the contrary, we are working to fulfill our obligations to all of
our members and to all people who are impacted by EDA standards. We are
just doing it in a way in which you disagree. The original budget
elicited cries of being too expensive. Oz went back and re-worked it to
be more conservative by counting on more in-kind donation of meeting
space, etc.

> IEEE is just a volunteer organization, a nonprofit, for
> engineers. It isn't part of the EDA industry, and its
> responsibility is to the membership, not to the
> stockholders--who can not exist for a nonprofit.

More red herrings as this statement starts off stating a fact and then
jumps to stockholders without any connection whatsoever. Also, it is a
bait-and-switch tactic as we are not discussing the governance and
budget of the IEEE. We are discussing DASC which IS the conduit to IEEE
standards for the EDA industry. Our responsibility (within our scope)
is not to the entire IEEE membership. It is to the DASC membership
working under the P&Ps of SA and Computer Society.

> I want to add that I don't dislike meetings in person.
> I like them and prefer them to voice or video meetings. But,
> the small disadvantage of video vs personal meetings doesn't
> justify the cost of a plane ticket. If the difference
> between voice and personal meetings justifies a plane ticket,
> then please produce some quantitative evidence of this.
> I haven't seen a single fact along these lines.

I cannot convince you of a value you do not perceive. If they have no
value for you, don't attend in-person. We always provide telecon
access.

However, the DASC and DASC-SC run by commonly held democratic and
procedural principles. Your complaint is that you don't like the result
even though results were legitimately produced. That is to say, that
enough people find value in face-to-face meetings that the DASC and
DASC-SC will continue to conduct them.

If you simply stated your disagreement with the results, I, for one,
would not get irritated from your emails. Instead, you find it
necessary to continually throw out inaccurate, partial information and
fallacious arguments that are not connected to the issue. Whether
intentional or not, all forms of logical fallacy or intellectual
dishonesty and therefore distracting and annoying.

> In my experience, a voice conference, with Email support, can
> be as effective as a personal meeting--it just is a little
> less fun to talk on the phone.
>
> Bottom line: I don't think the DASC membership should be
> underwriting the kind of additional expense being requested by the SC.

Yes, this is the bottom line, let's stick to the issue and leave the WG
budgets, IEEE governance, stockholders, and all other red herrings out
of the discussion.

-Steve Bailey
Received on Mon Nov 22 07:24:33 2004