Date: Thu Sep 14 2006 - 07:49:33 PDT
Dear Mr Clark: I am sorry to realize that the recent messages exchanged on this reflector confused some of us about what is going on here. Not willing to discuss actions of company XYZ on this reflector is no cover-up, it is just common sense of an knowledgeable person who knows, and understands why IEEE e-mail reflectors are not meant to discuss company actions. As for "condescending" I will let other people judge if those talking down the Electrical Engineering Careers in this country deserve full honors and diplomatic respect, or they should be shut off before they manage to produce any moral damage to the younger generation. You may not have read all the exchanged e-mails, and you may not have understood what I am talking about. If that is the cause of your attitude I would understand. Finally, why were you so silently watching this spectacle. As an IEEE member you have the right and the moral obligation to intervene as soon as you see something is wrong. I would also advice you to think twice before accusing me about any lack of moral quality. Sincerely, Alex Zamfirescu On 9/14/06, David M Clark <dmclark@raytheon.com> wrote: > > > Alex, et al, > > I have been silently watching the spectacle of the dominance/voting/etc. > unfold before my eyes like a train wreck in slow motion and I feel that I > must finally speak out. > > First, a disclaimer: I don't know any of you personally or professionally, > and as an end-user with virtually zero interest in the outcome of the > particular standards that brought about the debate, I am about as neutral a > third party as one will find in this debacle....but I immensely concerned > with the process and fidelity of the standards body. > > Given the disclaimers, I must say that I find Alex's conduct of late to be > condescending, exhibiting the very stubbornness he disclaims, and, quite > frankly, appalling. To dismiss lightly ANY dissenting voice belittles > everyone and is not a trait that should be exhibited by a representative or > officer of any standards body of any ilk at any time. I believe Alex has > shown himself to be incapable of fulfilling the moral (if not ethical and/or > legal) obligations of his position and should step down. > > And the entire set of issues being debated here should be elevated to the > highest levels of the IEEE for adjudication. To do anything less will only > breed further contempt for the neutrality and trustworthiness of the > standards to come in the future. To paraphrase well-understood ethical > principles of law, justice, and faith: we must avoid even the *appearance* > of impropriety. > > And to try to entertain a vote to remove this debate from the DASC > reflector would smack of a cover up. Only full openness in the full light of > day -- no matter how uncomfortable -- can promote confidence and healing. > > Dave. > > [image: Raytheon] *David M. Clark* > Senior Principal Engineer with Honors > 520.794.2486 > 520.794.7486 fax* > **dmclark@raytheon.com* <dmclark@raytheon.com> > > > > *"Alex Zamfirescu" <alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com>* > Sent by: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org > > 09/14/2006 06:25 AM > To > "Gabe Moretti" <gmoretti@comcast.net> > cc > stds-dasc-sc@eda.org, stds-dasc@eda.org Subject > 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* <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 > > <thread deleted> > -- Alex Zamfirescu 650-814-7514 alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com