Re: Issue with P1647 Working Group

Dear Karen:

Before we look into this please be so kind to explain how do you interpret
the clause
5.2.1.3 copied below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dominance in a working group (or subgroup) may occur if an unduly high
proportion of individual
participants are from, employed by, or otherwise represent a single entity
(including its affiliates),
particularly when the participants do not, or do not expect to,
substantively participate in the group. Such
dominance can be contrary to open and fair participation by all interested
parties and, if so, would be
unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The important distinction is the interpretation of the meaning for
"particularly when the participants do not, or no not expect to..."

The question I have for you Karen, is: Do you think that "particularly"
implies that both
conditions need to occur or it is just a literary expression?

As I have doubts about the inclusion of just a literary expression in an
important bylaw
clause, I interpret that the meaning is that both conditions

(A) participants are from, employed by, or otherwise represent a single
entity (including its affiliates),

and

(B) the participants do not, or do not expect to, substantively participate
in the group.

have to be true to recognise group dominance.

Another motivation for my interpretation is the word "may" used in the
introduction

"Dominance in a working group (or subgroup) may occur if..."

In other words the skeleton of the phrase is

                 Dominance may occur if (A), particularly when (B).

I read this to mean that you need (A) and (B) to recognise dominance.

If you think we need to interpret this

                  Dominance occurs when (A) and more sure when (B)

or something similar, which will recognise dominance when only (A) is true,
we need to talk. In that case we need to find the right interpretation from
the IEEE.

In case you agree with my interpretation, then we need to find how to
evaluate
or check (B)

"when the participants do not, or do not expect to, substantively
participate in the group"

for the group you mention.
Note that I did not assume (A) is true, but just that it is easier to check.
Note that condition (B) is weak in the fact that "do not expect to" is
subjective, and more
it is left at the latitude of the group members (otherwise it would have
been "are not
expected to").

I am sure that all group members will answer that they are expecting to
participate
in the group, so how do you suggest to check condition (B)?

Until we can find that both conditions (A) and (B) are true, I will not
approve, or
recognise any merit to a claim to stop activity of the group. I took the
liberty to
act on this since Victor is also from Cadence.

Kind regards,

Alex Zamfirescu
DASC Vice-Chair










On 8/31/06, Karen Bartleson <Karen.Bartleson@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
>  Dear Yaron,
>
> With all due respect, I am compelled to resurface an issue that I
> complained about quite a while ago.
>
> The IEEE P1647 Working Group has an unduly high proportion of individual
> participants from, employed by, or otherwise representing Cadence Design
> Systems.  Such dominance is contrary to open and fair participation by all
> interested parties and is unacceptable and in direct violation of IEEE-SA
> Standards Board Bylaws.  (See
> http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf clause 5.2.1.3)
>
> From the IEEE P1647 roster of voting members, Cadence Design Systems
> controls 67% of the working group votes.  This effectively means that all
> actions taken by the IEEE P1647 Working Group are entirely controlled by
> Cadence Design Systems.
>
> Until such time as Cadence's dominance can be corrected, I ask that you
> suspend all activities of the IEEE P1647 Working Group as it is unable to
> fairly represent the interest of all parties.  Further, Yaron, since you are
> employed by Cadence, you are ethically bound to recuse yourself in
> addressing this appeal.  The DASC-SC and DASC have been copied on this
> message.  I await the response to this appeal from the DASC officers.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Karen Bartleson
>
> DASC member
>
> IEEE-SA member
>
>
>



-- 
Alex Zamfirescu
650-814-7514
alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com
http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com