Re: P1647 Initial Ballot Data

Steve:

I used some time to prove that "represented" did not mean
or implied representation as in "lawyer group X REPRESENTED
the 13 companies in court", but a vague pictorial description of content
like in "The flowers in this ceremony _represented_ more than
half of the ten parts of the Girl Scout Law"

It does not make sense that a balloting group REPRESENTS
companies or universities. Think about it. Where is the
_group_ REPRESENTING companies? The only meaning was
descriptive, and that's why there is no contradiction with
the fact that the balloting group was individual based. We all agree
on that.

It is also true that PR released by the group has to be approved,
nobody contradicts that. However, there is no reason to mention
it since this was a company PR, circumventing no rules because
DASC rules does not apply to company PRs.  A company may
chose to say anything about anything, it's their business.

You should know better that, in fact, it is not advisable to discuss
in the IEEE meetings about what companies are talking about, nor it is
recommended that anybody uses the IEEE reflectors to post company
representations, and DASC reflectors should not be used to broadcast
statements in the name of companies or call companies acts into
question. People should participate as individuals. Have you seen
any violation of that? Hmmm...

Sincerely,

Alex Zamfirescu






On 11/18/05, Bailey, Stephen <SBailey@model.com> wrote:
> Alex,
>
> I appreciate your attempt to diffuse the issue.  However, falls short of
> achieving that purpose.
>
> "The balloting group represented more than 12 companies and five
> universities ..."
>
> The balloting group was individual based.  Therefore, it cannot be said
> to represent anything except the opinions of the individual experts who
> balloted.
>
> Furthermore, the DASC has a policy that position statements from the WGs
> must be approved by the DASC-SC (see section 13 of the DASC P&Ps).  This
> PR was not so approved.  Had it been, then the obvious problems with the
> wording would have been discovered and fixed.  Victor is aware of the
> DASC P&Ps.  A company can issue its own PRs to circumvent the DASC P&Ps
> and the DASC is powerless to prevent this.  However, is that the
> behavior we would want to see the DASC Chair condone and conduct?
>
> It is clear to me that the wording was intentionally chosen to imply a
> level of support and backing for 1647 that cannot be implied from the
> ballot.  If corporate backing for the standard was important to the
> balloting group, they had the ability to achieve that through and
> organizational entity ballot.  They chose to have the standard be
> represented by individuals instead.  Therefore, all they can assert is
> that 1647 is backed by 55 individuals.
>
> -Steve Bailey
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org
> > [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Alex Zamfirescu
> > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 8:18 PM
> > To: Brophy, Dennis
> > Cc: Victor Berman; Peter Ashenden; Ric Chope; John Walz;
> > stds-dasc-sc@eda.org; stds-dasc@eda.org
> > Subject: Re: P1647 Initial Ballot Data
> >
> > Dear Colleagues:
> >
> > Worst things can happen when engineers act as lawyers. This
> > is especially true when their object of debate is just literature.
> > Note that I call anything that is published outside of
> > courts, patent offices or governmental organizations, "literature."
> > One characteristic of such publications is the lack of
> > clarity (not that patents are clear).
> >
> > As an example, let's see what could happen, if all parties
> > mentioned in the paragraph below would consider some non
> > obvious implications.
> >
> > "The balloting group represented more than 12 companies and
> > five universities, with participants possessing a wide range
> > of expertise.
> > There was strong geographic support for the ballot, with
> > representation across North America, Europe and fast-growing
> > technology centers in Eastern Europe."
> >
> > The government of Romania might take offence from the fact
> > that the paragraph seems to imply that Eastern Europe is not
> > part of Europe, as the "and" in the last sentence above could
> > be interpreted to imply.
> >
> > Any geographical society could be offended because there is a
> > mention for a "strong geographic" support (maybe "diverse"
> > was meant) for the ballot of e.
> >
> > Company x or y or z could take offence because it might
> > consider that it was counted in the first 12, and not thrown
> > in the uncounted group above 13. In fact nobody knows exactly
> > how the "more then 12" was reached at, so the possibility
> > that a specific company that was not identifiable by its
> > e-mail was not even counted is still there. It is also quite
> > possible that the reporter wanted to convey a diversity of
> > supporters. My two cents observation that 12 is in digits
> > while "five" is in letters supports the idea, that the
> > reporter's concern was about diversity, and that the intent
> > was not to imply anything about a specific company.
> >
> > Finally, the balloting group might be offended because the
> > group (as far as it is known) does not represent any company
> > let aside more than 12.  Does that make sense?
> > That is if one of the 11 meanings listed below under MEANINGS
> > OF THE WORD "REPRESENT" is wrongly applied (i.e. meaning number 6)
> >
> > MEANINGS OF THE WORD "REPRESENT"
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > 1 : to bring clearly before the mind : PRESENT <a book which
> > represents the character of early America>
> > 2 : to serve as a sign or symbol of <the flag represents our country>
> > 3 : to portray or exhibit in art : DEPICT
> > 4 : to serve as the counterpart or image of : TYPIFY <a movie
> > hero who represents the ideals of the culture>
> > 5 a : to produce on the stage b : to act the part or role of
> > 6 a (1) : to take the place of in some respect (2) : to act
> > in the place of or for usually by legal right b : to serve
> > especially in a legislative body by delegated authority
> > usually resulting from election
> > 7 : to describe as having a specified character or quality
> > <represents himself as a friend>
> > 8 a : to give one's impression and judgment of : state in a
> > manner intended to affect action or judgment b : to point out
> > in protest or remonstrance
> > 9 : to serve as a specimen, example, or instance of 10 a : to
> > form an image or representation of in the mind b (1) : to
> > apprehend (an object) by means of an idea (2) : to recall in memory
> > 11 : to correspond to in essence : CONSTITUTE intransitive
> > senses : to make representations against something : PROTEST
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------
> >
> > I am convinced that the implied meaning of the word
> > "represent" was not 6 above but more closer to the more
> > literary meaning 3. A group cannot "act in the place of or
> > for usually by legal right" any company. That is in general
> > the role of a member of a group, but this is not implied by
> > the fact that the subject of the phrase was "the balloting group."
> >
> > IMHO, and I am not a native English speaker, no other meaning
> > matches, but number 3. So my understanding is that the intent
> > of the reporter was to emphasize on diversity, portraying
> > that the balloting group was composed of people from many backgrounds.
> > Mentioning "many companies and many universities"
> > is bad style, so one might have thought to use the literary
> > "more than a dozen" which turned out to be "more than 12".
> > Note that no exact number was given, but the form "more than
> > x" was used which does not make sense in case of countable
> > objects, unless the count is rough, vague or not exact. How
> > can a rough count offend anybody?
> >
> > After all this was a positive PR for the DASC and the IEEE,
> > and this should not be neglected. The clear positive intent
> > of the reporter should not be penalized by non obvious
> > implications or readings of the text.
> >
> > Also Eastern European governments, or the geographical
> > societies are not encouraged to jump into this :-) , yet :-)
> >
> > DASC needed some positive PR, and this was an occasion for
> > all of us to celebrate. I am confident that there will be
> > plenty of occasions for Victor to even up on any
> > inconveniences the alleged loud press release might have
> > brought, be them reasonably natural or plainly artificial.
> >
> > I am also expecting that we will continue to act as engineers
> > looking to solve the complicated problems ahead of us.
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Alex Zamfirescu
> >
> >
> > On 11/18/05, Brophy, Dennis <dennisb@model.com> wrote:
> > > TO: Victor Berman, Cadence Design System & DASC Chair Elect
> > >
> > > CC: Peter Ashenden, Past DASC Chair
> > >       Alex Zamfierecu, DASC Vice-Chair Elect
> > >       John Walz, IEEE Computer Society SAB Secretary
> > >       Ric Chope, Cadence Design System MarCom Specialist
> > >       IEEE Computer Society Design Automation Standards Committee
> > >       IEEE Computer Society DASC Steering Committee
> > >
> > > Dear Victor,
> > >
> > >   I call on Cadence to cure the inaccuracies and harm
> > caused by their
> > > press release and I call on you to help me and the members of DASC
> > > understand why your chairmanship confirmation by the CS SAB
> > should not be challenged.
> > >
> > >   I do thank you for the information supplied so far in a move to
> > > ensure all DASC members are treated as equal.  From the
> > P1647 meetings
> > > that were held to come to resolution of outstanding ballot
> > issues, I
> > > was aware of the comments that were being resolved by the group's
> > > Ballot Review Committee.  I appreciate you making this information
> > > known to the whole group.  The other information on ballot
> > > participants, was not quite what I sought.  I was looking for that
> > > along with their affiliations since some Cadence had this
> > information.
> > >
> > >   I have taken this message from you and the one from Yaron
> > to suggest
> > > that I am left to impute the affiliation in the same way Cadence
> > > Design Systems did for the 14 November 2005 press release.
> > >
> > >   I have done this to conclude that Mentor Graphics is one of the
> > > entities that Cadence Design Systems identified in their
> > press release.
> > >
> > >   That being the case, I speak to this issue as a representative of
> > > Mentor Graphics. From the information supplied, it can be easily
> > > determined that an employee of Mentor Graphics participated
> > as an Individual technical expert.
> > >  Although this person gave their @ieee.org email as their contact,
> > > Mentor Graphics is aware of email between you and Yaron
> > that confirms
> > > you knew of this affiliation.
> > >
> > >   The Cadence press release essentially said that our employee
> > > represented Mentor's approval of P1647.  Although Mentor's
> > reference
> > > was aggregated in with all entities, the representation was
> > none the
> > > less made.  The statement by Cadence is false, inaccurate and a
> > > dishonest characterization of our position with respect to
> > 'e' that can have potential business harm.
> > >
> > >   I believe Cadence needs to reissue the press release and
> > remove the
> > > offending text and apologize to all those it inaccurately
> > > characterized.  (I have copied the Cadence marcom
> > specialist who was
> > > listed as the contact for this press release to ensure Cadence
> > > corporate is aware of this transgression and this demand.)
> > >
> > >   I am also disturbed that you were identified as the Sponsor's
> > > representative in the ballot process that essentially
> > identifies you
> > > are the initial source to this information, along with
> > others in the
> > > 1647 management group you had to share it with to address ballot
> > > issues, and elected to allow the information to be used for
> > Cadence's selfish corporate purpose.
> > > This is a lapse of judgment and discretion which is
> > outrageous in the
> > > extreme.
> > >
> > >   This act on the eve your chairmanship for the DASC
> > plunges the DASC
> > > back to the depths of turmoil and returns it to the dark
> > ages of its existence.
> > > This is not the Victor Berman I know, but I now seriously
> > question if
> > > you can discharge your DASC responsibilities with impartiality.
> > >
> > >   Many of us have worked to mature the standards making process for
> > > EDA.  By moving to corporate/entity process, it was
> > possible for us -
> > > company to company - to discuss and surface political and business
> > > issues that might have a chance of being resolved.  Does
> > Cadence see
> > > this value?  In the case of 1647, I don't think it is
> > evident.  Just
> > > look at the list of participants at the Study Group phase of 1647
> > > (mostly Cadence/Verisity employees) that was misrepresented to the
> > > DASC and NesCom claiming 100's of members stood in support
> > of the work.  Yes, many people did, but not members as required.
> > > And I do respect that there are many in the electronics
> > industry that
> > > seek 'e' to be an IEEE standard.  I hold nothing against
> > them in this
> > > quest; they just have to participate.  But when you look at the
> > > ongoing Working Group meetings, Cadence employees
> > represented more than 80% of the voting members.
> > >  Very few others participated.  Now, in the final ballot, Cadence
> > > Design Systems representatives are about 8x the size of the next
> > > entity's representatives in the ballot group.  Cadence has been so
> > > concerned that its work would not become a standard that in
> > all these
> > > cases it has sensed the need to stack the group to ensure
> > the outcome
> > > making 1647 look like its own private hobbyhorse.
> > >
> > >   As others of us in the industry matured the standards
> > process, how
> > > was the
> > > 1647 group treated?  Did you find an inrush of competitors bent on
> > > stacking votes against Cadence?  Not once.  Yes, Cadence
> > was called to
> > > task to follow the prescribed processes and to be accurate
> > and honest
> > > in all their representations.  But I can't find any
> > evidence that any
> > > other company in the industry wanted to return to those old days.
> > > Victor, we have moved on to a better way and it is sad to
> > see Cadence hasn't or can't.
> > >
> > >   I call on Cadence to cure the inaccuracies and harm
> > caused by their
> > > press release and I call on you to help me and the members of DASC
> > > understand why your chairmanship confirmation by the CS SAB
> > should not be challenged.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Dennis Brophy
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > Mentor Graphics Corporation
> > > Dennis B. Brophy
> > > Director of Strategic Business Development dennisb@model.com
> > > 8005 SW Boeckman Road, Bldg E-4
> > > Wilsonville, OR 97070-7777
> > > tel: (503) 685-0893
> > > fax: (503) 685-0923
> > > mobile: (503) 706-8987
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Victor Berman [mailto:vberman@cadence.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 6:29 PM
> > > To: Brophy, Dennis; Peter Ashenden; stds-dasc-sc@eda.org;
> > > stds-dasc@eda.org; alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com
> > > Subject: P1647 Initial Ballot Data
> > >
> > >
> > > The  mail I just sent had the wrong subject.
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Victor Berman
> > > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 6:22 PM
> > > To: 'Brophy, Dennis'; Peter Ashenden; stds-dasc-sc@eda.org;
> > > alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com; Yaron Kashai
> > > Cc: stds-dasc@eda.org
> > > Subject: P1666 Initial Ballot Data
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear DASC and Interested Parties:
> > >
> > > I got several requests for P1647 ballot data so I am
> > sending a copy of
> > > the data from the MyBallot system to this group.  The
> > system does not
> > > seem to be set up for nicely formatting the data but all
> > the data in
> > > the system with regard to the votes cast is in the enclosed
> > file.  I
> > > have also enclosed a spread sheet with all the comments received.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if you need any other information.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >  Victor Berman
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alex Zamfirescu
> > alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com
> >
> >
>


--
Alex Zamfirescu
alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com