Re: Your Mea Maxima Culpa - You Owe Us Something

Dennis:

With my structured view further deformed by the long lasting min, max, mean
EDA paradigm, I tried to find where stands the "Mea Minima Culpa" and
realized it
belongs to all of us out there who did not volunteer their time (in
time) for the
DASC SC. I remember for example talking to several people about being nominated
for DASC officers a year or so ago, and I remember negative answers
from people like
Karen or Steve. DASC was thought of as irrelevant, and not many people
were ready
to jump in and help bring relevance back into DASC. IMHO that was
wrong calculation,
and I am glad to see it is being fixed now, but the blame should not
be on those already
in, but on those who choose to stay out.

As I look further, I see an even larger "Culpa", let's call it the
"Mean Culpa."
This is related with the tone of debate, the way some people try to
divert the effort
from progress, and the rigidity commended by others in a committee where
for example, just an acknowledgment that minutes will correctly
reflect the facts
would be enough to continue on the line enabled by the facts. In other words
the "Mean Culpa" is really "mean," and the question is whom does such meanness
really serves? Please chose the answer form the choices below:

A. The "Mean Culpa" serves those who hate fast progress
B. It serves the comedy show authors with no subjects to write about
C. It serves the lawyers because nothing good can come out of such debates
D. It serves other industries who envied the pace in EDA and wanted to
slow it down
E. Other; Please add your own choice.

I hope, this e-mail will not start a big round of replays, calls for
resignations, or
other refreshing threats. I posted it just to present another perspective
on the min, max, mean Culpa-s.

Kind regards,

Alex Zamfirescu

On 10/20/06, Brophy, Dennis <dennisb@model.com> wrote:
>
>
> Victor,
>
>   I have watched and read the barrage of emails the past month or more and
> have seen no recognition of your failures in leadership and lapses of
> judgment for having not followed our written procedures.
>
>   In several actions you have taken the past year, I have questioned your
> conflicts of interest and have ask you to acknowledge them, not repeat them
> and apologize to all of us for such ethical breaches.
>
>   You have remained silent as to your complicity in these actions and have
> crossed the line of my trust in your leadership, which I sadly write.
>
>   As I wrote my last email that was sent out moments ago to the group today
> to restart our operation and to follow our rules again, I reread and rewrote
> the message so it was not to characterize your actions or inaction as being
> egregious.  But they have been.  And they trouble me.
>
>   I believe you have significant conflicts of interest, have not disclosed
> them and have run roughshod over the DASC when you should have recused
> yourself in many of these instances in an abuse of power.  In a repeat of a
> statement I made last year, the DASC is not Cadence's hobbyhorse.  But you
> have made it just that.  My hope is the recent elections will balance this
> to force all of us to face the need for consensus.
>
>   But as I wait for the DASC to again restart itself, I wait for you to do
> the right thing and apologize to us.  To date your silence has deafened me
> and saddened me.
>
>   At a minimum you owe us a mea maxima culpa.  But your silence has drawn me
> closer to suggest to you that what you really owe us is your resignation.
> We have slipped back into this abyss because of your fault, your most
> grievous fault.
>
>   As you and the DASC officers plan the next DASC-SC meeting, I will make
> every effort to attend as an observer to offer my inputs on how we can
> reconstruct, restart and re-trust.
>
> -Dennis
>
>
>


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