Re: P1647 Initial Ballot Data

John:

Thank you for taking the time to read the DASC reflector.
What should be clear for everybody, is the fact that the DASC
is a limited activity committee with clear attributions. In any case
DASC is not in charge, and it should not become the place for
any company debates, competition discussions or product
reviews.
Bringing to the attention of the DASC members relevant
information that was published about their activities is something
that a DASC member can do, but discussing publications from the
point of view of companies, or discussing specific company doings
should be considered out of order.
Dennis recent post bringing to our attention some published material
was relevant information to the DASC, but anything he added in his
name or the name of his company was out of order.
That is because he should be just concerned with what we do here as
individuals, and as a company representative he is not
entitled to address DASC unless in the Working Group where his
company is a participating entity, and even there there are restrictions
about what can be discussed. This is a serious matter, since any
violations are against the rules enabling us to meet, some giving
IEEE a tax exempt status, other related to antitrust laws.

Note that in my e-mails I just had the courage to discuss an
hypothetical phrase, not mentioning any company names etc. Now I
realize that
even that was a mistake. For whatever reasons, some people would
continue to stretch the meaning of a press release, and continue to
think DASC should be investigating its members, for example if they
happen to be in the possession of information that appears vaguely
described in xyz
press releases, by chance, telepathy, or by any other unproved
coincidental theory, that is outside of our concern.
One thing should be clear: DASC is not chartered to investigate anybody.
We do not have an official way to file a complaint, if it comes from a
company, we are not a court to provide for discovery etc., nor an
organization to enforce virtue.
Therefore, I would kindly invite all of you, if you want to continue any
discussion about Dennis e-mail pointing to a recent press release,
to do it in such a way as to comply with DASC attributions and charter.

During the last few years our committee had to
disband some of its active working groups, either to solidify others,
to move the work outside DASC, or just to make the quorum in the
DASC-SC reachable. Some used those transitions, to point at
some lack of vitality and relevance in DASC. The new balloted standard
based on e-language, is just the contra-example that proved that DASC
can do good relevant standards, fast, and with a variety of support.
That explains, at least to me, the extra exuberance, of press releases
talking about the e-language ballot. I hate to point it that people unhappy
about the exuberance, might be also unhappy because DASC is relevant
again. I say "might" because there are also some competitive forces,
but those should not be our concern here, now.

Mistakes were probably made in changing DASC, and mistakes will
happen in the future. In judging the possible guilty people we should
first try hard to understand their intent, and second we should restrict
ourselves to our attributions. There are many forums where the freedom
of speech is quasi total. On the DASC reflectors we keep
the discussions within our scope, and focused on our purpose which is
mainly the standard processing, with emphasis on what we can do to
help the technical progress, and increase business opportunities in
the EDA industry. We should do this by observing some rules, including
not mentioning specific companies actions, driven by marketing or
whatever other forces, products, prices, etc.

For some of you who would like that I take a more judgemental position,
I would invite you to be more specific, like making a motion about it, so
we can ask everybody if this thread has to continue or just stop.
In doing that please remember the DASC attributions and
the restrictions of what can be discussed here.
In any case, nobody will officially act on any requests that are partially
out of order, whose resolutions require going out of the DASC scope
and/or are violating what should be our only concern.

Kindest regards,

Alex Zamfirescu

P.S. John please forgive me for not defining the word "ethics",
I know only something terrible about it -- it's not equal to all men.








On 11/21/05, John Shields <John_Shields@mentor.com> wrote:
> Alex,
>
> While I appreciate to some degree your attempt to clarify the possibilities
> for ambiguity and interpretation that the English language allows, I am an
> English language speaker and I can read the press release and see clearly
> what the intent behind it was.  Cadence intended to portray that "e" had the
> broad support it needed in the standardization process and imply that those
> who may have been concerned that "e" was  a proprietary language should no
> longer be concerned that it will be appropriately replaced by standards such
> as SystemVerilog.  It implies that industry is behind "e" as a result of
> this vote.
>
> I was a member of that ballot group and my interest was entirely as an
> individual and not a representative of my company.  I resent the fact that
> Victor assembled information to make the appearance of a different
> representation, particularly in consideration of his knowledge of the
> standardization process and rules governing it.  This message was aimed at
> an audience not expected to appreciate the subleties of IEEE balloting, the
> role of individuals vs. corporate entities, nor perhaps the true nature of
> EDA industry support for "e"  This press release will be potentially further
> misused in the sales process. Cadence can do what it wants, but Victor
> should have known better than to support the derivation of this information
> from the balloting process for such a press release.  There is a clear
> violation of our ethics.  I would point out that the appearance of
> wrongdoing and possible conflict of interest should have guided Victor to
> make a better choice then and now, clearly, proper ethical behavior would be
> for him to insure the press release is retracted.  He asked for permission
> after the fact to publish my affiliation in a list of balloters.  So there
> is no mistake, I am supporting that in order to support the inquiry of this
> whole matter.  In no way will it justify that the press release itself is
> acceptable after the fact.
>
> I am concerned that your immediate and unequivocal support of Victor's
> behavior shows a deep bias on your part.  You would be asked to support an
> inquiry of this behavior as the DASC has been so asked.  Peter deferred it
> to the incoming leadership and expected that Victor would be wise and recuse
> himself from investigating himself.  Knowing that this task would likely
> fall to you,  I am shocked at your unwillingness  to exercise caution in
> rushing to judgement, regardless of your personal opinion.  I am not swayed
> by the argument that even if Victor may have offended, he'll just "owe us
> one" and make up for it later.
>
> I'll be happy to get your explanation of the possible meanings of the word
> ethics, too, but please don't dismiss the underlying concern.  If Victor
> does not repair this
> damage, perhaps it will fall on the DASC (or the IEEE SAB) to right this
> wrong and issue a press release that condemns the implication made by
> Cadence while acknowledging the work of individuals.
>
> Sincerely,
> John Shields
>
>
> Alex Zamfirescu wrote:
> 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