Re: P1647 Initial Ballot Data

Dennis:

I do not have any "well formed Appeal in front of" me, as you might imply.
You wrote:
>  As for me, my desire for "equal" knowledge from the 1647 process has
> been satisfied.
I am very glad to see that you are satisfied with the "equal" knowledge.

Regards,

Alex Zamfirescu






On 11/30/05, Brophy, Dennis <dennisb@model.com> wrote:
> Alex,
>
>  I would follow the DASC P&Ps for Appeals.  See clause 11 in
> http://www.dasc.org/procedures/DASC-procedures-adopted-2005-10-11.pdf
> which points to subclause 5.4 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws at
> http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf and Subclause 5.8
> and IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual at
> http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sb-om.pdf.
>
>  I think you should take the role of Appeal administrator.  I believe
> that Oz has a well formed Appeal in front of you.  I also think both
> Evan and Cliff have some suggested remedial actions that if Oz were to
> use, might allow for a more complete Appeal.
>
>  5.8 of the Ops Man discusses how to do an appeal at the SA level.  I
> believe the CS SAB also has a process.  I've not looked at those P&Ps,
> but from memory, you will work with the appellant and appellee to agree
> to 3 people to be on the Appeal Panel, two of whom the appellant agrees
> to and two of whom the appellee agrees to.  If they cannot agree after a
> "reasonable" time, you can appoint the three.
>
>  You then hold the hearings and if the allegations are held, the
> remedial actions are recommended or modified are taken.  If the
> allegations do not hold, no action is taken and the appellee can appeal
> to the CS SAB if they wish.
>
>  I would suggest you contact CS SAB liaison for help in this.
>
>  As for me, my desire for "equal" knowledge from the 1647 process has
> been satisfied.  As far as the misuse of information, this allegation is
> in Oz's Appeal, and I will subordinate any allegation to his.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Zamfirescu [mailto:alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 6:38 PM
> To: Brophy, Dennis
> Cc: stds-dasc-sc@eda.org; stds-dasc@eda.org
> Subject: 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
>


--
Alex Zamfirescu
alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com