Dear Ron: I am sure that you do not expect that I can leave this here. I will draft my request to people who can decide if anything went wrong and call for a re-election, or issue any other requests to balance the issue. Your wisdom to calm down the waters is appreciated, but the choice to do it is not. I also appreciate Gabe's view that procedures should not be changed because that is exactly my point. The difference comes only in what we understand that the procedures are. I include established procedures, reasonable expectations, common sense, and culture, and am "stunned" to see that others want to exclude them, leading to the over-debated "idiotic" view that all the knowledge about DASC elections is or should be in the P&Ps. For many other reasons I will not enumerate here, the so called election carried in the last month was flowed, and others and I think that it should be declared invalid. I see that nobody wants to be bothered with that anymore, and I understand, and see that nobody in the DASC has authority to correct anything, so I will bring this to people who can analyze and decide. Finally, this issue could have been solved in time, but the RO chose to motivate that he does not have time to volunteer for it. An RO who can not use the right amount of time (a few extra minutes) should IMHO be disqualified. Sincerely, Alex Zamfirescu On 12/18/07, Ron Waxman <r.waxman@computer.org> wrote: > > Gabe, > > > > I applaud your wisdom. I hope we can all follow Gabe's thoughtful > comments now, and in the future, so we can act like the professional > organization we are. > > > > Ron Waxman > > > > *From:* owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] *On > Behalf Of *Gabe Moretti > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:32 AM > *To:* stds-dasc@dasc.org > *Subject:* RE: DASC officer election resumption > > > > Dear Members of the DASC; > > I believe that this discussion has passed its maximum utility mark some > time ago. Continuing it may satisfy some of us but to most of us, and > especially to outside observers (who have a legal right to the content since > our business must be conducted in the open), it gives a sense of internal > strife that has not proven healthy to the DASC in the past. I acknowledge > that all the email messages have been posted in good faith, but I believe > that lately we are not contributing to a solution. > > When the P&P document was drafted, care was taken to develop it > correctly. Unfortunately, humans are not perfect (or the perfect ones did > not take part in this work) and not all possible outcomes were taken into > account. The time to change the P&P's is not during this election process. > In order for the IEEE-CS SAB to ratify the results, the elections must be > conducted according to the existing rules. Item 3.1.1 of the present P&P > covers this process. > > After the elections, it may be wise to revisit this item and add a clause > that requires a candidate, upon acceptance, to provide a statement > describing his/her qualifications and his/her platform in order to be > included on the ballot. > > I believe that this is required by an organization that: > > 1) conducts its work in a disperse fashion through electronic means, and > > 2) intends to grow by adding new members who cannot be expected to be > familiar with the backgrounds and aspiration of nominees. > > I leave to more capable individuals the task to decide if a voting period > should be defined in item 3.1.1, just as we have defined a minimum period > for acceptance of nominations. I could not find such definition in any of > the documents referred to in the P&P's but my search might not have been as > careful as it should have been. > > Finally I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you who > freely offer your time to improve methods and tools in the Design Automation > field. > > Gabe Moretti > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org [mailto: > owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org]*On Behalf Of *Alex Zamfirescu > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:22 AM > *To:* stds-dasc@server.dasc.org > *Subject:* Fwd: DASC officer election resumption > > FYI > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Alex Zamfirescu* <alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com> > Date: Dec 17, 2007 9:09 PM > Subject: Re: DASC officer election resumption > To: "Bailey, Stephen" <SBailey@model.com> > > Steve: > > > > Please read between your lines below. > > Your implications do not relate to what I said. > > > > On 12/17/07, *Bailey, Stephen* <SBailey@model.com > wrote: > > Alex, > > You missed the point. I didn't say that position statements are > prohibited. > > > > And I did not say that you claimed that position statements are > prohibited. > > > > I stated that "Your view that if something is not written in the > procedures it should not > happen is therefore flawed." Meaning that there are things which are not > spelled in > > details in the P&P-s which still have to happen in order to qualify an > election as valid. > > I hope that you agree with this. > > > > > I only stated that the elections need only meet the criteria specified in > the P&Ps. > > > > Not true. An election has to meet also other criteria. Some come from the > P&P-s > > other come from the established procedure, other come from reasonable > expectations, > > and yet others come form common sense and average meaning and perception > > about things in a culture. > > > > > Since the P&Ps do not cover position statements, it is up to the > returning officer as to how they are handled. > > > > And they have to be handled according to established procedure, and > expectations. > > In case that he wants to change something he has to announce it in > advance, and not > > surprise anybody with innovations which will not make sense even if there > is not > > enough time to volunteer (this was the reason given for not doing the > right thing). > > > > > > > The general requirement only being one of fairness. > > > > > > Note that I take fairness to mean "exhibiting a disposition that is free > of favoritism or bias; impartial." > > > > Fairness is one, but it should not be interpreted that by being fair (no > one gets > > a better deal) the RO can in any way harm anybody in any way even if > > it is done in a uniform way to all candidates, and even if somebody > > could claim that this is fair. Think about it, maybe you claim tha the RO > > could invent any method, like one harming, painfull or damaging, just > because he > > can apply it the same way to all. That's why the RO is not allowed to > remove expected > > procedural phases. Note also that the exclusion of a procedural phase even > if it is done > > to all the candidates, might be advantageous to some and more > disadvantageous to others, > > so it is not even fair according to the initial definition. > > > > > As the DASC reflector is open to all, no permission or accommodation by > the RO is required. > > > > > > For what? Sure, the reflector is open, and anybody can post, but the > gathering > > of all statements, and the broadcast of the ballot including statements is > > much different from the liberty to post a message. I explained the diffs > in another > > e-mail, and will not repeat them here. > > > > >>Any candidate can take the initiative to make a statement. > > > > Sure they can do it, but with the ballot paper they are required, all > statements > > are broadcasted in one ballot, everibody gets to see that before their > initial vote. > > > > >>The more relevant aspect of the P&Ps I was addressing is that raised by > Dennis -- that >>the chair cannot interfere in the election as he is a > candidate. > > > > The chair can post anything on the reflector as anybody else. The > reflector is free, > > as you stated. > > The RO should not be influenced beyond his own thinking (reason), but if > somebody flags > > an error, he can correct the situation without the danger of people > thinking > > that somebody interfered. > > > > > > >>That gets to the general requirement of fairness of the election. > > > > I am sorry but Victor took the agreement of everybody involved before even > > > opening a dialog. You were cc-ed to every e-mail. > > > > >>Broader still, it gets to the legitimacy and integrity of the > DASC. Both of these >>characteristics of DASC must be protected which is > why Victor so quickly rescinded his >>request to Peter. > > > > You assume that Victor did that because he did something unfair the first > time, > > which is not true. What was unfair was that Peter in his message stopping > the > > election mentioned "the chair" instead of pure and simply, and with > courage, > > recognising that a minor glitch occurred which he tries to fix or repair > it. > > >>Peter has given direction to the candidates and DASC that are within the > P&Ps. > > >>Barring any evidence that Peter's actions have violated the P&Ps, let's > get on with the >>election. > > > > The more you try to explain the more you convince me that the elections > > validity was compromised. > > > > Steve, since what you tell me, and my view about it is useful to all the > DASC members > > I cc the reflector here. I hope you do not mind it, it's not something I > like done to my > > e-mail messages, but when it happens I just say "C'est la vie!" meaning > "That's life!" > > I think that's called "public life." > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alex Zamfirescu > > > > ---------- > Stephen Bailey > Product Marketing Manager, Questa > stephen_bailey@mentor.com > +1 303 775 1655 > www.mentor.com > > --- original message --- > From: "Alex Zamfirescu" < alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: DASC officer election resumption > Date: 17th December 2007 > Time: 2:44:13 pm > > Dear Steve: > > What is written in the procedures will be always detailed down to a > certain > level. > The procedures are not a program that a machine executes, they are a set > of recipes > that humans with memory observe. > > Your view that if something is not written in the procedures it should not > happen is therefore flawed. I challenge you to write the procedures which > will be executed by a machine. > > Until then we need to relay on the fact that we are human. One of our > advantages > is that we follow established procedure. This is all what I asked. > > I may come with many examples of things which are not written in the > procedures > but happened just because that's the way elections are performed. > > Alternatively, we should not hold elections without first writing down > how we did them in the past, in whatever detail you think that is needed, > if we can not take that (the established procedure, even the semantic > of some words, etc.) into account in other way. > > I do not look forward to becoming a machine. > > Sincerely, > > Alex Z > > > > On 12/17/07, Bailey, Stephen <SBailey@model.com > wrote: > > > > Can everyone calm down a bit? > > > > The DASC has operating procedures (policies and procedures) that govern > > how we operate. One purpose of having those procedures is to avoid this > > > type of situation. The P&Ps cover elections of DASC officers. They do > not > > require solicitation of or handling of position statements as part of > the > > elections process. Therefore, they are not required by our P&Ps. > > > > Alex has pointed out that this may be a shortcoming in the P&Ps. It > might > > be, but that is a subject for revising the P&Ps, not for changing the > > documented elections process in the middle of an election. It is also > > important that Victor, as a candidate for an office that is being filled > in > > this election and as current DASC chair, delegate the responsibility for > > conducting the election to a returning officer (elections > processor). This > > is for the purpose of maintaining impartiality and avoiding undue > influence > > of the chair on the elections. > > > > Due to past allegations of DASC P&Ps not being followed and the > subsequent > > issues that created with SAB, the DASC needs to operate under the P&Ps > and > > not deviate from them, regardless of the intent in wanting to do so. > > > > We run the DASC by the book (which is sometimes inconvenient). If we > find > > the book needs to be improved, then there is a process for revising the > > P&Ps. > > > > -Steve Bailey > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org [mailto: > > owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Hanna, William A > > *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 12:13 PM > > *To:* Shields, John > > *Cc:* Alex Zamfirescu; Peter Ashenden; stds-dasc@server.dasc.org > > *Subject:* RE: DASC officer election resumption > > > > > > My Reply is to John Shields because the message is an accusation > direted > > to me: > > > > John: > > > > Your remarks on my remarks are not acceptable to me because I did not > say > > what you are accusing me of saying. I did not use the wrod terrorist. I > also > > do not have a conspiracy theory mind that links Alex's position > statement or > > lack thereof to Peter's proposal to delay the election of officers for 2 > > weeks because of the holidays. > > > > Sorry, you jumped to unfair judgement of several people that are acting > in > > good faith. > > > > Bill Hanna > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* John Shields [mailto: John_Shields@mentor.com] > > *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 12:34 PM > > *To:* Hanna, William A > > *Cc:* Alex Zamfirescu; Peter Ashenden; stds-dasc@server.dasc.org > > *Subject:* Re: DASC officer election resumption > > > > > > Bill, > > > > I am truly surprised by your remarks and Alex's. Everyone has made an > > attempt to satisfy Alex's desire to have position statements, without > being > > rash about attempting to change the P&Ps concerning election in the > middle > > of an election. I note that everyone up for nomination *except Alex* > has > > put forth a sincere position statement. For him to have time to > playfully > > chastise Peter and tacitly criticize the Chair for asking for the > election > > to be continued according to the rules and still not respond with any > > comment about providing his own position statement IS HIS POSITION > > STATEMENT, as far as I am concerned. > > > > Your opinion that it was OK for Peter to act as he did is a fine > opinion. > > When it is prudent to break the rules, they should be broken and it is > no > > big deal who gets elected, right? > > > > The "ultra right wing terrorist in our midst" name calling seems out of > > character for you though. > > > > Regards, John > > > > Hanna, William A wrote: > > > > DASC Team: > > > > I do not see the big deal about delaying the DASC election to after the > > Holidays. Dr. Ashenden was right in making the early decision, he was > also > > wise in rescending it *because of the ultra right wing?* that is in our > > group with a single mind of torturing us with legalize not appropriate > for > > an all volunteers engineering standards body. You wonder if we are > running > > the UN's Wold Court here? > > > > People lighten up. Take it easy - extending election time is not likely > to > > change the outcome of this election and even if it does, it is not a big > > > deal. > > > > > > Happy Holidays, Cheers, > > > > > > *William A. (Bill) Hanna; Ph.D.EE <http://ph.d.ee/> <http://ph.d.ee/>* > > *Technical Fellow - Electronics Design* * & Analysis* > > Boeing-IDS Programs Phone: (314) > > 232-0714 > > MC S106-9075 Mobile: > (314) > > 302-8039 > > St. Louis, MO 63166-0516 E-Mail: william.a.hanna@boeing.com > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Alex Zamfirescu [mailto: alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com< > alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com>] > > > > *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 9:04 AM > > *To:* Peter Ashenden > > *Cc:* stds-dasc@server.dasc.org > > *Subject:* Re: DASC officer election resumption > > > > > > Dear Peter: > > > > You were not someone who would allow himself to be > > influenced unduly or who would have had a knee-jerk > > reaction to a problem. We all know that good Returning > > Officers never disappoint in that regard. > > Therefore, I have to share here my surprise for > > seeing how easy you overruled your own previous decision, > > but I may understand that this is all you can do, in case > > the only other alternative was to recuse yourself. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Alex Zamfirescu > > > > > > On 12/16/07, Peter Ashenden < peter@ashenden.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > > > It would appear that I acted precipitously in suspending the election > > > for > > > DASC officers. This message is to resume the election process > according > > > to > > > the original timetable, namely, the ballot closing 5:00pm US-PST, > > > Tuesday 18 > > > December. If you have not already voted, please do so by then. If you > > > wish > > > to revise a previous vote, I will count the last received by the > > > deadline. > > > > > > Thanks for your patience, and best regards, > > > > > > PA > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > > > Nominations for Chair and Vice Chair for the IEEE DASC have now > closed. > > > The > > > nominees are: > > > > > > Chair: Victor Berman > > > Vice Chair: Stan Krolikoski, Kathy Werner, and Alex Zamfirescu > > > > > > Under IEEE election procedures, we still need to have an election for > > > each > > > position, as there is the option of voters writing in candidate names. > > > > So I > > > now invite members of the DASC to vote. Those members who have > > > participated > > > in 3 of the last 4 DASC meetings/ballots are eligible to have their > > > votes > > > counted. Other members should still vote or send a formal abstention, > > > since > > > this ballot will be counted for the 3-of-last-4 rule. > > > > > > As specified in the DASC procedures: > > > > > > Voting shall be by "approval", whereby each balloter may cast an > > > approval > > > vote for each of any number of nominees for an office. The Returning > > > Officer > > > shall acknowledge receipt of electronic ballots in a timely fashion. > The > > > nominee with the greatest number of approval votes shall win the > > > election. > > > Write-in candidates are permitted as specified in the IEEE Bylaws. > > > > > > Would WG members please vote by completing the form below and > returning > > > to > > > me by reply email by 5:00pm US-PST, Tuesday 18 December. > > > > > > Thanks, and regards, > > > > > > Peter Ashenden > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Chair (place X next to name to indicate approval vote): > > > > > > ____ Victor Berman > > > > > > ____ Write-in: ___________________ > > > > > > > > > Vice-Chair (place X next to name to indicate approval vote): > > > > > > ____ Stan Krolikoski > > > > > > ____ Kathy Werner > > > > > > ____ Alex Zamfirescu > > > > > > ____ Write-in: ___________________ > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Dr. Peter J. Ashenden peter@ashenden.com.au > > > Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd. www.ashenden.com.au > > > PO Box 640 VoIP: > > > sip://0871270078@sip.internode.on.net > > > Stirling, SA 5152 Phone: +61 8 7127 0078 > > > Australia Mobile: +61 414 70 9106 > > > > > > > > > -- > > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > > believed to be clean. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Alex Zamfirescu > > 650-814-7514 > > alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com > > http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com > > ========= > > This communication, and its attachments, may contain > > privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific > > individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the > > intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or > > shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that > > any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or > > the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. > > Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication > > Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have > > received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply > > e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original > transmission > > and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. > > Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. > > ========= > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by *MailScanner* < http://www.mailscanner.info/>*, and > is > > > > believed to be clean. > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by < http://www.mailscanner.info/>**MailScanner, and > is > > believed to be clean. * > > > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by *MailScanner* < http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and > is > > believed to be clean. > > > > > > > -- > Alex Zamfirescu > 650-814-7514 > alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com > http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com > ========= > This communication, and its attachments, may contain > privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific > individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the > intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or > shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that > any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or > the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. > Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication > Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have > received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply > e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission > and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. > Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. > ========= > > > > > > -- > > > Alex Zamfirescu > 650-814-7514 > alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com > http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com > ========= > This communication, and its attachments, may contain > privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific > individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the > intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or > shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that > any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or > the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. > Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication > Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have > received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply > e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission > and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. > Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. > ========= > > > > -- > Alex Zamfirescu > 650-814-7514 > alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com > http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com > ========= > This communication, and its attachments, may contain > privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific > individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the > intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or > shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that > any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or > the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. > Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication > Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have > received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply > e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission > and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. > Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. > ========= > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>*, and is > > believed to be clean. * > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. > -- Alex Zamfirescu 650-814-7514 alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com ========= This communication, and its attachments, may contain privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. ========= -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Dec 18 13:14:53 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 18 2007 - 13:15:29 PST