RE: Review of DASC membership fees

John,

> I didn't say that an editor was controversial; I've been
> an editor for a Std WG. Please reread what I wrote: The
> amount of money I quoted is controversial, in my opinion.
> If there is no such salary being paid by dues, then this
> supports the idea of lower expenses for WG activities, which
> is the point I am trying to make.

DASC dues do not go to pay for editors for any WG. WG budgets are
separate from DASC budget.

> You gave huge numbers for WG expenses: I asked you were
> these travel expenses only, then? Below, you seem to be
> saying that indeed, some of the amount quoted would
> justifiably be expended on editorial services. Doesn't this
> seem inconsistent with the claim that questioning such an
> expense would be a "red herring"?

WG expenses are a red herring in this discussion because they aren't
relevant. As I said above, the DASC dues do not cover WG expenses. The
DASC organizes EDA standards activities, ensures EDA standards
development is done appropriately (by SA, Computer Society and DASC
P&Ps) and generally helps to facilitate by having a core of people
experienced in the standards development process. This is not the same
as funding each standards project (working group). Note that the CAG is
no different. The CAG does not fund P1800, P1850 or P1666. Those WGs
are responsible for their own funding and budgets.

> I never claimed this: You are misreading what I'm writing
> based on some assumption of your own. I claimed that a WG
> can operate on $0 expense to the DASC or to IEEE. I
> explicitly stated that I was not accounting for industry
> donations, for example of voiceconference facilities, coffee,
> and other similar items. Also WG editorial services, in the
> (in my opinion fantastic) event that a volunteer editor could
> not edit a ms well enough to turn it over to IEEE for production.
>
> Please read what I am writing; control your taste for red herrings.

I thought you were using WGs (specifically, the fact that some have
developed standards on a shoestring) as an analogy for why the DASC
could operate on an equivalent shoestring. My original response pointed
out that while this is true for some standards, other standards required
significant funding to bring to fruition. Therefore, the analogy
doesn't hold.

Your subsequent explanation/clarification seems to be a continuation of
a falsely held belief that the DASC funds all WGs which I have pointed
out earlier is not true. If I'm still missing the point, then I await
further clarification.

I will leave the fantastic comment aside and simply point out that it
isn't DASC's responsibility to dictate to WGs how they generate the
standard for balloting as long as it is otherwise done in conformance
with DASC and parent P&Ps.

> The controversy would be in use of DASC or WG dues to hire
> such a person. And in the $100,000 amount I gave.

Already pointed out that DASC dues do not go to this purpose.

> It would be a respectable accomplishment of DASC-SC if it
> could locate nonmember sources of the travel funds being requested.

Where? Who is going to dedicate their time to fund-raising? ...

> I disagree, IF you are saying that we have to fund TRAVEL to
> such meetings. If you can quantify this need, I will
> consider withdrawing my objection to travel pay for
> attendance at personal meetings.

Your objection is noted and you can vote accordingly. Please be aware
that by objecting to paying for travel of officers (when necessary)
would prevent academics, consultants and small business owners/employees
from holding DASC SC officer positions.

> You keep repeating this with no other justification than,
> at best "I like it; therefore, we need it." This would
> happen to be MY argument, too. But I don't know of anything
> factual to justify paying for it.

But, it isn't just my opinion. The DASC-SC has consistently stated that
this is the SC's position.

Please also note that part of the budget is for the cost of meeting
space at venues where many people interested in EDA standards will
already be. Specifically, DATE, DAC and Asia-Pacific EDA TechnoFair.
The DASC is being considerate of going to our constituency and not
requiring them to travel separately to meet our convenience. We want to
reach the widest audience possible.

> If you are saying that personal meetings should be held where
> a quorem can be reached without travel reimbursement, for
> example at the same place as a trade show, then I agree with
> you. I think the small additional benefit of meeting in
> person justifies gas to drive to a local meeting.

See above. This is more an indication of the level of value you place
on DASC (not specific WGs) meetings. That is your choice/decision.
But, the DASC has a much wider constituency which we need to keep
informed and ensure we are meeting their needs for EDA standards.

> Again, I say SMALL without quantitative justification, just
> as it seems you would say BIG.

Please don't put words into my mouth.

> Can you quantify this? I often hear that this or that
> product is "better" ot "more productive" than others.

Via the number of outstanding issues that were resolved. No WG that I
know of spends any effort to accurately quantify their productivity as
that isn't their end goal.

> It would be just as reasonable to hold meetings in
> cyberspace, by voice or tele conference, thus avoiding all
> geographic bias at EVERY meeting.

Except while it might be 5 o'clock somewhere, it isn't 5 o'clock
everywhere. (A little drinking humor to point out differences in time
zone which make any meeting biased for/against.) Plus, how are native
english language speakers to realize that their points are not getting
across to the (for example) the Japanese (any non-native english speaker
and even english speakers) without seeing facial and body expressions?
Plus, your comment is already biased (I'm sure unintentionally so) in
that it doesn't take into account any cultural weight that in-person
meetings have.

> > 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.
>
> So, the DASC Chair has to do all the work? Is this a valid
> assumption?

Are you volunteering to do fundraising ($'s or in-kind)? It doesn't
happen automatically.

> It isn't worth $100 to me, as I have stated already.
> This is because $100 is more important to my career than
> either DASC membership or a newspaper subscription.
> I'e never even mentioned DASC on a resume: It's not that
> important to anyone, except to a dedicated volunteer wanting
> to make EDA standards better.
>
> None of your "rights" to work as a volunteer are worth
> anything to me; they are work that I should be reimbursed
> for, just as should the Chair or anyone else required to pay
> for travel to meetings.
>
> The question is, should I give up another $100, in addition
> to my time and effort, including these Emails?
> I say, no.

Then don't. You are still welcome to contribute to whichever WGs you
are interested in and can also continue to be editor for 1076.6 or other
standards. It has always been the case that those who are able and
willing to pay the costs do so even though others that benefit do not.

-Steve Bailey
Received on Mon Nov 22 12:13:49 2004