Re: Power Initiative

Gabe:

I am currently in a 3 day IP-XACT meeting in Cambridge UK, from here I will
be all next week
in the IEC TC93 meetings in Berlin. I use the little free time I have to
address your
accusations, but I will not be able to continue this discussion for much
longer.

Nobody is "stubborn" here. It is clear to me that DASC has enemies who try
with any mean to dismantle its activity. I am sorry to recognise that at
this time
I do not know anymore on what side you are.

I would invite anybody out there to speak out if he or she considers
discussions
about what XYZ talks in UWV meetings should be our concern.
I would leave a two day window and then call off any discussion not
pertinent
to DASC activity progress.

Gabe, I would also invite you to address the DASC members, many of them
very enthusiastic about their engineering career with more care. Pessimism
about
electrical engineering careers, and in general discouraging statements, and
demoralizing attempts will not be tolerated anymore. If needed we can vote
to
prevent those who do not understand to keep and promote a positive attitude
in this group from posting to this reflectors.

Thank you for your understanding,

Alex Zamfirescu


On 9/14/06, Gabe Moretti <gmoretti@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>  Dear Alex,
> because of our professional history I know that, at times, you can be
> stubborn in defending a previously taken position that, in light of new
> developments, is now illogical.  So you ask Dennis and I to stick to DASC
> "matters" and to "defend DASC on the outside front".  I know you are
> well-meaning and I know there  is little in your professional activity you
> cherish more than good, sound standards.  Here is my answer.
> I would like to point out that any activity within the EDA industry that
> happens because of acts, decisions, or omissions on the part of DASC, is a
> DASC matter.  I would also point out that DASC is not a free standing entity
> but that the consequences of its activity and behavior of its
> leaders reflect on the Computer Society, IEEE-SA, and IEEE.  This is not a
> "us" versus "they" situation, but rather a "us" versus "us" situation.  The
> DASC has been too cavalier in managing itself, relying on the fact that,
> after all, we all want what is best for EDA and the electronics industry in
> general.  So, the end justifies the means has become, in a few cases, the
> way we operate.  And, without direct oversight, it has gone unchecked to the
> point that now whatever seems logical becomes acceptable, even if it is a
> shortcut that has consequences outside of "our outside front".  So my letter
> last evening was not a gratuitous narration of some company behavior that
> had nothing to do with the DASC.  I reported the consequences of either
> misinformation or misunderstanding of the procedures within DASC and
> IEEE-SA.  This is relevant to all members of the DASC because it shows that
> our actions and decisions have consequences that do not stay within the
> collegiate world of standards but go beyond "our fronts".  What do you think
> is going to happen when a senior vice president of the leading EDA company
> finds out the DASC cannot deliver what she was told we could do: A standard
> by February 2007 that can be called "an IEEE standard" or more likely "an
> IEEE standard just going through the final approval stages"?
> The results have been telling, dear Vice Chair.  The membership of the
> DASC has continued to decrease, of the 71 members in 2006 only a couple of
> dozens bother to take advantage of the membership privileges, and a number
> of companies do not allow their employees to work on DASC matters during
> company time because they deem such work unproductive.  You should fight for
> the rights of every DASC member to provide meaningful input to any work we
> undertake, not just be seen as a convenient, yet very influential, rubber
> stamp.
> In closing, I would like nothing more than to be able to praise the DASC
> for its accomplishments and have absolutely no reason to write about its
> shortcomings or its lack of proper management.  But if you think that the
> DASC can survive and be relevant solely by living within "it borders" and
> ignoring the impact on the industry as a whole, then you do not understand
> the DASC mandate and its mission.  To be relevant we must be aware and
> understand the impact that the behavior within DASC has on the industry we
> supposedly serve, we must promise only what we can deliver, and we must
> stress the benefits we provide to the industry when we follow the rules.
> Then, and only then, we will not have to worry about "fronts".
> Gabe Moretti
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alex Zamfirescu <alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com>
> *To:* Brophy, Dennis <dennisb@model.com>
> *Cc:* Gabe Moretti <gmoretti@comcast.net> ; stds-dasc-sc@server.eda.org ;
> stds-dasc@server.eda.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:14 AM
> *Subject:* 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
>
>


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