Mr. Moretti: Since I could not find that the Bylaws were violated I stated my final position (and with Victor "recused", that of the DASC management). I could not find that any dominance (as defined by the IEEE SA Bylaws) was used in the e-language group. With this the matter is closed. Please address the DASC-SC reflector with any other issues, but please consider not using this resource to further discuss a matter that is closed in the DASC. Also, please address us with more pertinence in the future. Thank you, Alex Zamfirescu DASC Vice-Chair On 9/1/06, Gabe Moretti <gmoretti@comcast.net> wrote: > > Alex, > this is getting boring. You offer no further support for your individual > interpretation of a paragraph that is, in my opinion, easily understood and > not in the way you support. You have failed to convince me that your > interpretation makes sense. Thus any further discussion between the two of > us on this subject is clearly unproductive. As I am sure you have noticed I > have sent email to Yaron asking explanations about his statement earlier > today about the number of active participants in the P1647 WG and their > qualifications. Once he answers that email we will better see what the > situation really is. > With respect to the remarks you make at the end of your email regarding > your role you are not acting as a moderator: you yourself stated that you > were deciding the issue since Victor would have to recuse himself. Of > course no one has heard from Victor since 8/30 in the evening, so we do not > know if you have the authority to decide or you are acting under an > "interpretation". > Gabe > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Alex Zamfirescu <alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com> > *To:* Gabe Moretti <gmoretti@comcast.net> > *Cc:* stds-dasc-sc@server.eda.org ; stds-dasc@server.eda.org > *Sent:* Friday, September 01, 2006 2:13 PM > *Subject:* 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 > > -- Alex Zamfirescu 650-814-7514 alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.comReceived on Fri Sep 1 14:46:13 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 01 2006 - 14:46:24 PDT