Re: Power Initiative

Dennis and Gabe:

You seem to be abusing the use of the DASC reflector.
If you have anything to complain about a company or another please address
that company directly.
Please refrain from using this reflector to point to
unacceptable activity, which is not that of DASC
members. It is confusing and non productive.
If you were on our side you would not complain to
us, but try to defend DASC in the best way you can on the outside fronts.

Thank you,

Alex Zamfirescu

On 9/13/06, Brophy, Dennis <dennisb@model.com> wrote:
>
> Gabe,
>
>   Thanks for the message alerting the group to statements being made by
> Ms. Willis of Cadence at their CDNLive event regarding the IEEE CPF
> Working Group.  Unfortunately, I did not attend CDNLive and did not see
> Ms. Willis's presentation, nor was one provided to us in your message.
>
>   I did look at the Cadence website to find information that seems to
> match what you are referencing.  Can you confirm this presentation was
> the one you referenced in your email:
> http://www.cadence.com/cdnlive/na/press/CDNLiveSV2006PressPresentationsP
> FI.pdf?   [I note this presentation is marked to be Cadence
> Confidential, but being open on the Internet, fair use rules apply.]
>
>   For the record, we should all know there was also a press release on
> these details as well which accompanied the presentation.  The press
> release can be found at:
> http://www.cadence.com/company/newsroom/press_releases/pr.aspx?xml=09050
> 6_pfi.
>
>   From reading the presentation, I can see, Gabe, how you conclude that
> PFI has submitted CPF to the IEEE CPF Working Group.  It says it in
> slide 3.  Even the press release goes to great lengths to say the same
> thing.
>
>   I've looked through the DASC and DASC-SC reflector and have found no
> information on its formation.  I see no sponsor approval to have gotten
> it to NesCom for approval.  As a member of the CAG board, I can tell you
> no such request to vote on corporate sponsor approval has been presented
> to it.  I do note that I have gotten email from Victor Berman today
> which discussed a proposed meeting of the CPF Study Group.  This is a
> proper start but is formation at this moment is a non-starter.  As we
> know, IEEE's rules do not permit consideration of any technology that
> places a burden on the recipient with respect to confidentiality or
> copyright.  CPF remains private and unavailable to the DASC and hence
> must remain outside of the IEEE standardization process.
>
>   I am astounded at the continued and flagrant abuse of the DASC and the
> IEEE standardization process by Cadence.  It is past time for Cadence to
> stop the abuse of the DASC.  I concur with you that errors of this
> "magnitude are not acceptable."
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-dasc-sc@server.eda.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-dasc-sc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Gabe Moretti
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 2:28 PM
> To: stds-dasc-sc@server.eda.org; stds-dasc@server.eda.org
> Subject: Power Initiative
>
>
> Before I claim to the pulpit again, I want to personally acknowledge the
> considerate change in the approach toward a CPF WG taken by Victor
> Berman.
> Obviously the formation of a Study Group is the correct step since this
> standard is important and thus needs to be able to follow the IEEE
> procedures on the strength of its technical content, free from any
> political
> interference and managerial errors.
> I also want to thank Victor for proceeding with the elections for the
> offices that are technically vacant in the DASC.
> Unfortunately, the corrective action with respect to the CPF proposed
> standard came a day too late to stop the dissemination of incorrect
> information to, at the minimum, the attendees of the CDNlive! event.  In
> a
> presentation yesterday Jan Willis, senior vice president at Cadence and
> Power Forward Initiative Advisor, told the audience that  on September 1
> the
> Power Forward Initiative submitted an IEEE Working Group for the
> standardization of the Common Power Format.  She did announce that
> Milind
> Padhye of Freescale is the WG Chair.  The presentation ended with two
> slides
> that show how the "standardization" process could be accelerated by one
> year.  Projecting that the standard would be approved in 2008, she
> showed
> that if the WG approved an earlier version in 2007, that could be the
> "standard".
> I know Jan Willis, and I know that she would never intentionally use
> erroneous or misleading information in a public presentation.  So I must
> come to two conclusions: either she does not understand the IEEE
> standardization process, or she was told the wrong information with
> respect
> to both the standardization procedure and the ability to call a working
> document a standard.  As we all know just because the WG reaches
> consensus
> on a draft document, until the document is balloted no one can be sure
> that
> it will not be substantively changed due to appropriate input received
> during the comment phase.
> I am afraid that those attending this presentation left with the wrong
> impression of both how the IEEE operates and the timing of the
> availability
> of a IEEE standard version of CPF.  We must continue to strive to get
> the
> correct message out: we are engineers after all and approximations of
> this
> magnitude are not acceptable.
> Gabe
> ***********************************************
> Gabe Moretti
> GABE on EDA
> 1355 Berkshire Court
> Venice FL. 34292
> www.gabeoneda.com
>
>
>


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