Re: Issue with P1647 Working Group

Karen:

There are two reasons I rushed to consider closed the issue.

1. I could not imagine any arguments which would have changed my essential
view point.
2. DASC needed Victor back in his active role.

I am sorry to have disappointed you. I really admire your talents, and hope
that you will be as active as before, or even more active in the DASC.

Kind regards,

Alex Zamfirescu

On 9/1/06, Karen Bartleson <Karen.Bartleson@synopsys.com> wrote:
> Alex,
>
> I'm disappointed that you closed this so abruptly.
>
> Regards,
> Karen
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-stds-dasc-sc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc-sc@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Alex Zamfirescu
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 2:44 PM
> To: Gabe Moretti
> Cc: stds-dasc-sc@eda.org; stds-dasc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: Issue with P1647 Working Group
>
>
> 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 <mailto:alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com>
> 	To: Gabe Moretti <mailto: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 <mailto:alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com>
>
> 		
> 		To: Gabe Moretti <mailto: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
> <mailto:alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com>
> 			To: Karen Bartleson
> <mailto: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 <http://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
> <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf> clause 5.2.1.3
> <http://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
> <http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com/>
>
>
>
>
> 		--
> 		Alex Zamfirescu
> 		650-814-7514
> 		alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com
> 		http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com
> <http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com/>
>
>
>
>
> 	--
> 	Alex Zamfirescu
> 	650-814-7514
> 	alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com
> 	http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.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