Re: P1647 Initial Ballot Data

Dear Dennis:

Let's try to keep it simple.

What is that you propose, or try to make a motion about?
Could you be clear and specific about it?

Please keep in mind that we should seek an ordered discussion. If there is a
motion, then we can discuss and vote, in other words be efficient to address
what you seem to have as problem. Otherwise, the discussions could go
into a never ending philosophical mode, with some thinking they are in court,
while others are jumping frustrated because their points are not
unanimously accepted. There is nothing that stops us from discussing
random issues
on the reflector, the only problem I have with this one particular
thread is that some of you think we need to act on it, while others
think we need to stop. The ideal scenario would be to have something
to act on and then stop.
So, again unless we read a motion, it will be hard to avoid
my invitation to re-focus discussion on productive standard items.

Please remember:

On the position of what "represents" means in the context
"The balloting group represented more than 12 companies and five
universities" I already stated (and proved) my position. That same position
is what you will most probably get if you chose to pursue any other paths.

On the issue of availability of information note that DASC maintains a roster
that according to procedures, is public to all DASC members. It includes
names affiliations etc. I read complaints that there were
too many people from one company in the WG, then I see that when you
talk about access to such a vague count as "more than12" you single
out only one person. IMHO, anybody in the working group had the
ability to (voluntarily or involuntarily) pass such information
around, during the celebration party,
or in any other more formal way. It is hard to turn any circumstantial evidence
into proved fact, and DASC should not try to specialize in that. I
read some of
Ron's message to mean that.

As a personal remark, I see a lot of repetitions, some unusual lapses
or even touches of roughness in your writing. I tend to do that when I
am frustrated, angry or even unhappy about something.
What can we do to calm down your possible anger, and channel your
energy towards more-productive-for-all areas?

As for addressing the DASC via these reflectors as representing your
company, please provide us with proof that your company should be
accepted with discussion, and voting rights in the DASC, and we will
document it appropriately on the DASC roster. Please let us know who
will be the designated person who will have the right to speak, and place
the company vote, if that is what you are looking for.

Please keep in mind that restrictions about what we can discuss here
still apply, and those include (I repeat again) corporate business.

Kindest regards,

Alex Zamfirescu


On 11/29/05, Brophy, Dennis <dennisb@model.com> wrote:
> Alex,
>
>  While I appreciate you pointing out there are often multiple meanings
> for a word, I stand by my interpretation of what was meant by
> "represents."
>
>  As you wrote this message the Friday before last, I was in the middle
> of crafting a response to the press from Mentor Graphics because the
> press assumed the same meaning I understood "represents" to mean.
>
>  As such, I believe my requests continue to have merit and deserves
> appropriate attention.  As an alternative, I could make a formal
> Procedural Appeal as allowed in our P&Ps and those of the IEEE-SA.  But
> I thought it best to keep my interactions simple.
>
>  Since Appeals are a cornerstone of our process, one cannot dismiss an
> Appeal because of the perception that engineers act as lawyers.  I would
> like to remind all of us that there are five imperative principles that
> drive the standards process: due process, openness, consensus, balance,
> and the right of appeal.  The imperative principles of standards
> development are important because there have been legal cases brought
> against standards organizations.  Based on these, the US Supreme Court
> has held that standards organizations are responsible for the actions of
> their standards developers.  That's why we need to follow the procedures
> that embody these principles carefully.
>
>  For those who would like to refresh their understanding of our
> imperative principles, the IEEE SA provides training material on this at
> http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/ImperativePrinciples.ppt.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Zamfirescu [mailto:alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 7:18 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