Re: Issue with P1647 Working Group

Gabe:

I do not know how to make it plainer. Here it is again.
We are faced to comply with a rule which states.

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

Note that this rule is meant to tell us when CONDITION
occurs.
There are two possible interpretations:

INTERPRETATION 1.

CONDITION does occur when (A) and (B) are true.

INTERPRETATION 2.

CONDITION may occur when (A), and condition may occur
when (A) and (B) with higher probability.

which is the same as

MINIMIZED INTERPRETATION 2

CONDITION may occur when (A)

if (B) is true only when (A) is true (which is the case with
our conditions
(A) - many from same company
(B) - not all from that company, active or with active intent.

With grat respect for the Bylaws I chose
INTERPRETATION 1. I do that by considering the first
"may occur" in the first part of the phrase as applying only to (A), and
looking at the second part of the phrase as one which gives
the definitive answer. Only by looking at the phrase this way
one can remove the vagueness of the clause and transform it
into a solid statement.

Otherwise if we chose INTERPRETATION (B) we reach at a
clause which is vague and non enforceable due to the presence
of "may occur" in the final.

In conclusion, my interpretation of the rule about group dominance
was the one which assumed the rule is well written (convening
when dominance really occurs).

Of course you can stretch "particularly" to mean "definitely"
(although I would not use a dictionary to back that), and come up
with "CONDITION may occur when (A), and does occur when (A) and (B) are
true.
This is in my opinion not a correct clause because it does not tell
when exactly CONDITION occurs when only (A) is true as "may occur" is not
enough to claim something "did occur."

With this I will let you come back and accuse me of anything
including that I wanted to strengthen a position, even if I
just wanted to get and interpretation from Karen, the complainer.

My asking her is not interference with free discussion on the
DASC-SC reflector (not letting non voting members post anything
would be). As an acting lose moderator of this discussion in the
absence of Victor, I think I have the right to ask a direct question
to a complainer and get (or not get) a direct answer, without
being accused of trying to stop discussion.

Kind regards,

Alex Zamfirescu





On 9/1/06, Gabe Moretti <gmoretti@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>  Alex,
> I do not know how to make it plainer.  Here it is again:
>  You have keyed on the use of the "Particularly" to mean that both (A) and
> (B) must occur.  In fact this is not what the clause means.  What it means
> it that dominance may occur if "an unduly high proportion of individual
> participants are from, employed by, or otherwise represent a single entity
> (including its affiliates)", and it will definitely occur when the
> participants do not, or do not expect to, substantively participate in the
> group.  The "particularly" in question is used to identify a more egregious
> form of dominance than the original one.
> So the correct interpretation is that dominance may occur if " an unduly
> high proportion of individual participants are from, employed by, or
> otherwise represent a single entity (including its affiliates)",  EVEN IF
> THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THE WORK, but it DEFINITELY occurs "when the participants
> do not, or do not expect to, substantively participate in the group".
> I am sorry you are sticking by your original interpretation which is
> wrong.  According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary The adverb
> "particularly" can be substituted by the word "specifically" which may be
> what drove you to your conclusion.  But this use only means that your clause
> (B) will occur concurrent to clause (A), which of course makes sense. The
> adverb can also be substituted with "to an unusual degree" which would then
> mean an unusual egregious behavior.  Again for (B) to occur (A) must occur.
> But "particularly" does not mean that (A) without (B) cannot occur.   Your
> interpretation is driven by your need to strengthen your own hand in a
> situation where the DASC has clearly acted improperly.  So feel free to
> interpret any way you want: this matter is not going to stop with you.  As
> far as your email having been meant for Karen, the statement is ridiculous.
> This is a matter not just for the entire DASC, but for anyone on the
> reflector and in fact any IEEE member whose professional activity is
> impacted by what goes on in the area of EDA standardization.  By engaging in
> individual responses, like you have done in this case you partition the
> debate and deprive everyone to participate fully in the discussion.  Divide
> and conquer, eh?
> Gabe
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alex Zamfirescu <alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com>
> *To:* Gabe Moretti <gmoretti@comcast.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:07 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Issue with P1647 Working Group
>
> Gabe:
>
> Mine was not an answer but a question of clarification to understand what
> should be checked.
> Let aside any other arguments, I do not buy that the language of the
> clause implies
> that if only (A) is true we have group dominance.
> If that is the case we have a big problem with how this clause is
> expressed,
> since it uses clear ending conditions in its logic structure.
>
> Until we get clarifications we should not act in any way.
>
> Again, my reply was just to clarify what is required to check.
>
> On the other hang Gabe, I would gladly stick with the technology.
> Unfortunately, you make my life difficult, and push me into spending time
> to answer complaints. I do not think we need to hire lawyers to
> understand that a phrase like "This CONDITION _may_ occur if (A),
> particularly when
> (B)" clearly means "CONDITION occurs when both (A) and (B) are true."
> I can repeat this three times if necessary.
> If you mean the intent was another one, or you want me to understand
> something
> else from that please just tell me just that (I may buy it or not), but in
> any case
> do not point to the clause.
>
> Also the question was for Karen, the complainer.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alex Zamfirescu
>
>
>
>
> On 8/31/06, Gabe Moretti <gmoretti@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >  Alex, Alex, Alex,
> > let legalese be handled by lawyers and you stick with technology.  You
> > are much, much better at the latter.
> > You have keyed on the use of the "Particularly" to mean that both (A)
> > and (B) must occur.  In fact this is not what the clause means.  What it
> > means it that dominance may occur if "an unduly high proportion of
> > individual participants are from, employed by, or otherwise represent a
> > single entity (including its affiliates)", and it will definitely occur when
> > the participants do not, or do not expect to, substantively participate in
> > the group.  The "particularly" in question is used to identify a more
> > egregious form of dominance than the original one.
> > So the correct interpretation is that dominance may occur if " an unduly
> > high proportion of individual participants are from, employed by, or
> > otherwise represent a single entity (including its affiliates)",  EVEN IF
> > THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THE WORK, but it DEFINITELY occurs "when the participants
> > do not, or do not expect to, substantively participate in the group".
> > Since you are the one making the decision, I strongly suggest you do not
> > answer so quickly based on your reading of the clause, but instead seek
> > legal advice from a professional.  You never know, you might be left holding
> > the bag on this one.
> >  Gabe
> >
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Alex Zamfirescu <alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com>
> > *To:* Karen Bartleson <Karen.Bartleson@synopsys.com>
> >  *Cc:* yaron@cadence.com ; stds-dasc-sc@server.eda.org ;
> > stds-dasc@server.eda.org ; 1647-l@ieee1647.org
> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:52 PM
> > *Subject:* 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alex Zamfirescu
> 650-814-7514
> alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com
> http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com
>



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