Karen: I agree with much of what you write. I am willing to let the discussions open if there is a sign that they become constructive and aiming more towards the purpose and scope of DASC. I hope you agree that there should be a limit of how much we allocate to each problem we encounter. Some problems require more time. However, I do not think that talking about company XYZ actions should be something that should take more than an informative period. Two days to bring it all in all should be enough. After that anybody could act on its own, since no DASC action is possible against a particular company. Keeping a longer discussion might convey the wrong message that DASC is conspiring, and that is definitively not something I am sure we do not want to be accused of. I hope you understand my perspective, Alex Zamfirescu On 9/14/06, Karen Bartleson <Karen.Bartleson@synopsys.com> wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > I "vote" to keep discussions open. There is too much closed nonsense > going on in our standards arena these days. > > When XYZ attempts to misuse DASC, regardless of where it's talked about, > this is a DASC matter. We should be allowed to communicate openly and not > be silenced. > > All of us care about our engineering careers. As such, we need to know > what's happening around us and not bury our heads in the sand. > > I would again be disappointed if you shut down lines of communication. > > Best regards, > Karen > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-stds-dasc-sc@eda.org <owner-stds-dasc-sc@eda.org> > To: Gabe Moretti <gmoretti@comcast.net> > CC: stds-dasc-sc@eda.org <stds-dasc-sc@eda.org>; stds-dasc@eda.org < > stds-dasc@eda.org> > Sent: Thu Sep 14 06:25:07 2006 > 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 > 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 <mailto:alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com> > To: Brophy, Dennis <mailto:dennisb@model.com> > Cc: Gabe Moretti <mailto:gmoretti@comcast.net> ; > stds-dasc-sc@server.eda.org ; stds-dasc@server.eda.org <mailto: > 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 < > 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 < > 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<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 < > 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.comReceived on Thu Sep 14 09:14:48 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 14 2006 - 09:14:59 PDT