Jim: The interpretation you provide is the weaker of the two possible. I explained in a previous e-mail that I take the wording of the Bylaws as providing clear clauses, and in that case the interpretation I used is that you need both conditions to recognize dominance. I invited the complainer to provide some information about how she counted those who "do not intend" to participate in the group. That was to check if the second condition was true. Until today I did not receive any answer. However, Yaron (the chairman of the group) in his e-mail points out that all the members of his group are technically active, so there is no reason to believe that anyone will be found who does not intend to participate, and who is there just to change the outcome of the votes. Also I have not seen any complaint from the members of the group that their voices can not be heard. Therefore, my position (and in the absence of Victor, that of the DASC manangement) is that the alleged dominance in the e-language group by one company is not real. Checking the facts and data I could not find any violation of the Bylaws. The group should continue to function as before according to all the IEEE SA, DASC and its own Bylaws and procedure rules. I consider this matter closed. Please consider not using this reflector for further discussion on this matter. Thank you, Alex Zamfirescu DASC Vice-Chair On 9/1/06, Jim Lewis <jim@synthworks.com> wrote: > > All, > I think we need an interpretation of 5.2.1.3. > I have copied it here for everyone's convenience. > > "5.2.1.3 Dominance > 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." > > My read is that the "may" applies to all of the sentence. > As a result, while numbers may lead to dominance, further > evidence of dominance is required. > > Given that Victor has been asked to be recused from this, > who decides? Is it Alex as chair, is it the DASC-SC, is it > DASC, or do we get an interpretation from IEEE-SA (hopefully > they will step in and speak up). > > Regards, > Jim > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Jim Lewis > Director of Training mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com > SynthWorks Design Inc. http://www.SynthWorks.com > 1-503-590-4787 > > Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -- Alex Zamfirescu 650-814-7514 alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.comReceived on Fri Sep 1 14:27:44 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 01 2006 - 14:27:56 PDT