Re: P1647 Initial Ballot Data

Dear Gabe, and dear Colleagues:

I have to thank you, but also to warn you.

I will start with the warnings:

1. Please do not use any specific references to companies (again).
This means that you can talk about what companies are doing in general
as related to standards, but please do not use specifics. If you want
to talk about a specific example please make it generic. Any marketing
debates can be carried on other reflectors or cheat rooms.

2. Second, please refrain from talking negatively about this
organization like "How has the DASC gotten so dysfunctional" without
pointing to specifics and proposing positive changes.

I have to be thankful to you for comparing the number of companies that
support engineers who are members in DASC or specific ballots with
the number of EDA companies in general.

The reason of this might be the key to our problem. In general there
are not many experts who can claim they can help develop standards.
Those who can have a general tendency to synchronize their vision of
what needs to be accomplished with their employer or sponsor business
needs. There are a few who can chose for themselves, and there is a
small but commendable category including those who chose to work on a
standard because they think it is technically what it is needed to
happen
to achieve progress, but their company would not "endorse" the outcome
of their work. Since companies are not endorsing an initiative unless
their marketing strategy tells them that, and because there are very
few companies who can cover all EDA, individual experts are faced
either with the choice to (a) work only on what is endorsed by the
company, (b) work on efforts that do not have a chance for
endorsement, or (c) stay out of the effort and watch for
opportunities.
It seems that category (c) is large, and this is what Gabe pointed
out, and we all understand category (a) is ideal. What about category
(b)? Those of us who are in the situation that are "supported" by a
company but the company does not officially "support" the worked-on
standard. Here we have to be careful with the wording (again).
Companies support individuals by providing resources, and
compensation. If individuals work on an effort using company resources
it is hard to understand how they
can stay out of the fact that the companies in fact legally supported
their effort. Where is the difference? Companies do not want sometimes
to appear that they "endorse" the effort, from whatever reasons, even
if nobody can deny that help for the effort came from the company. So
the difference is between (A) "endorsing" and (B) the fact that a
participant is
employed by a specific company, who supports him and indirectly
supports the effort.
Those of you who chose to work under such difficult frame work as (b)
above, are paradoxically great resources for the standard effort,
because you make technical only judgments, and tend to be passionate.

We have all to thank John Shields for his choice to be there and
help so much.

Individuals in category (b) are very vulnerable. That is because it is not
guaranteed that public information about their employment will not be
misused or misinterpreted to mean company "endorsement."

I hope everybody agrees that if a company misuses or somebody
misinterprets public information it is not DASC business to judge
and discover the truth.

However, due to the fact that all this DASC discussion seems to be
about category (b) and because we do not want to see people who are
faced with that category discouraged, I would like to apologise to
John Shields (apparently a recent category (b) example) for anything
DASC did to touch his fragile situation, including this continual e-mail
thread. I hope that you, John Shields, will continue to contribute at the
level you did before. I hope also that in the future members of the
DASC will not misuse information, either to reflect that a company
supporting  and engineer working on a standard, automatically
"endorses" the standard, nor that a pointer to the background of an
engineer working on a standard is a pointer to his company "endorsing"
the standard. As
engineers we should help promote this request outside of DASC.

Also, I promise, and Victor will surely agree, that we will work against
those pushing "non conventional buttons" to scare and discourage
future participation in category (b).

We all stated all we had to say. I invite Victor to resume the day to day
discussions about how to make progress. We have a lot of opportunities
and a lot of challenges. You are the best of the best, and hopefully ready
to tackle new heights.

Finally, Gabe, thanks again for providing the "out of the box" vision of the
DASC that enabled us to see more light.

Kindest regards,

Alex Zamfirescu








On 11/22/05, Gabe Moretti <gmoretti@comcast.net> wrote:
> Dear members of this email distribution list:
> Alex points out that we should respect the rules governing DASC in this
> email discussion.  Yet, one must acknowledge both intent and history when
> discussing a situation within the narrow confines of the DASC reality.  As a
> member of NESCOM when the P1647 project was submitted for approval, and an
> individual member of the DASC not affiliated with either an EDA vendor or an
> EDA customer, I hope I may be allowed to refresh people's memories about the
> intent, the history and the reasons we got in the present discussion.
> How did P1647 get to NESCOM:
> the formation of the Working Group that resulted in the official proposal
> sent to NESCOM was controversial and generated much discussion within the
> DASC.  The discussion centered on the list of people used to justify the
> widespread interest on the part of individual professionals to standardize
> 'e'.  As the rules of the DASC require, there must be sufficient interest to
> justify a proposal to standardize and to insure that the probability of
> having a functioning working group is high enough to provide a reasonable
> guarantee that the Working Group will finish the project.  The problem was
> that any knowledgeable observer could see that the list included a number of
> people, many employees of Verisity, who clearly had no technical expertise
> in 'e' and would not, once the project was approved, contribute any
> significant work toward a standard.  Neither the computer Society, not DATC
> (to whom DASC reports), nor the DASC SC or the DASC Chair officially
> objected to the list and the proposal was thus sent to NESCOM.  At the time
> I was not a member of DASC SC, so I could not interject myself in the
> discussion that led to submitting the proposal to NESCOM.  My personal
> conclusion at the time was that the DASC was so weak that had the Chair
> acted forcefully, it will have destroyed the organization.  So the greater
> good prevailed and the proponents were given the benefit of the doubt.
> What NESCOM does:
> the role of NESCOM is to judge whether of not the paperwork has been
> completed correctly before a proposed project is approved, and whether there
> are any circumstances which would prevent the effectiveness of the proposed
> standard within the segment of the industry it will serve.  It is NOT the
> role of NESCOM to investigate how the proposal was developed or whether or
> not any controversy still exists (and it did) about the proposal at the time
> it is presented.  The head of the Working Group and Verisity were concerned
> enough by the history of the 'e' proposal within the DASC and the possible
> repercussions during the NESCOM meeting that they sent representatives to
> the NESCOM meeting, an exceptional occurrence probably justified by the lack
> of a clear understanding of the NESCOM proceedings.
> Of course, the paperwork was in order, and NESCOM had no reason to second
> guess the sponsor, the Computer Society, so P1647 was approved.  Whether or
> not the operating rules of NESCOM should be changed because of what has
> happened within the DASC in the last few years, may be debatable.  I
> personally think that NESCOM is just fine as it is.  It is the
> responsibility of each IEEE society to either put its house in order or
> suffer the consequences.
> What is going on now:
> When an organization shows signs of being dysfunctional, and the DASC has
> both shown those signs and suffered the malady for at least five years,
> either the people responsible for its welfare correct the problem or will
> suffer the consequences.  This discussion is part of the "consequences".
> Before I go any further, let me point out that the Computer Society better
> do something about its standard making organization.  The DASC is held in
> such low regards by even its own members that it cannot even muster four
> people interested enough to fill its officers post.  This is probably due to
> the fact that the corporations the members of the DASC work for do not wish
> to dedicate any funds to support the DASC.  Now for the press release.
> Although Alex is correct that corporate issues have no place in the DASC,
> let's get real for a minute or two.  The assertion that engineers are
> individual professionals with no corporate affiliation is an historical
> figment that has long ago stopped to be real.  As many instances in recent
> years prove, engineers work at the pleasure of the company that employs
> them.  Their work is the property of their employers and their financial
> welfare depends on serving the financial interests of their employers.  To
> state anything else it just wishful thinking at best.  Yes I agree that
> there a few of us who enjoy greater freedom, but we are the exception, not
> the rule.  The Cadence press release is just the culmination of years of
> Verisity's efforts to achieve IEEE standard for 'e'.  Cadence should know
> better than to rub salt on old wounds that had, for the greater interest of
> the IEEE (and DASC), been filed in the "lessons to learn from" drawer of
> people's minds and not acted upon.  If one looks at the press release with
> an analytical mind, one would fire its writer and the person that approved
> it.  Just think:  the EDA industry has over 250 vendors and thousands of
> user companies.  There are certainly hundreds of academic institutions
> around the world conducting research in the field of EDA (just see the
> latest yearly table of content for Computer magazine).  To claim that 12
> companies and 5 universities participated in the successful balloting of an
> EDA standard as an achievement is to publicly admit that the interest in the
> standard was low.  This was further compounded by using quotes from two
> companies that are consulting organizations whose income directly depends on
> the market success of 'e'.  These are not users, these are companies that
> will benefit financially from the standardization of 'e'.  So, the press
> release is flawed in many ways.  Speaking as a professional that would have
> to rely on the contents of the release in order to write something about the
> event, I can tell you that I would, at best, ignore the release following
> the wise advice that: "if you cannot say anything good about it, do not say
> anything."
> Conclusion:
> Although Alex's reminder of the rules of the DASC and his solicitation that
> we only discuss things that are within the purview of the DASC is correct, I
> would like to encourage people who still belong to the DASC and who really
> care about its future health, to honestly and openly discuss what has been
> going on in the last five years, not only within the DASC, but within the
> Computer Society.  How has the DASC gotten so dysfunctional?  Is the purpose
> of the DASC still viable?  Are its operating rules up to date?  These are
> subjects that must be discussed, and using examples of dysfunctional
> behavior is a constructive method.  No one can argue the fact that the DASC
> has lost its prominence within the EDA industry for standard making
> activities.   Alternative channels, even within the IEEE, have been put in
> place to obviate its lack of effectiveness.
> Gabe Moretti
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Zamfirescu" <alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com>
> To: "John Shields" <John_Shields@mentor.com>
> Cc: "Brophy, Dennis" <dennisb@model.com>; "Victor Berman"
> <vberman@cadence.com>; "Peter Ashenden" <peter@ashenden.com.au>; "Ric Chope"
> <ricchope@cadence.com>; "John Walz" <johnwalz@ameritech.net>;
> <stds-dasc-sc@eda.org>; <stds-dasc@eda.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 8:33 PM
> Subject: 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
> >
>
>


--
Alex Zamfirescu
alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com