Minutes of 6/24/2003 meeting, as amended.
Attendence:
Called to order 8:35 June 24th, 2003
Attendence:
Today
|
v
A -aaaaaaaaaa Anders Nordstrom
- -aa-a---aaa Clifford E. Cummings
- -aaaaaaaaaa Dennis Marsa
- ---------aa Erich Marchner
A aaaaaaaa-aa Gordon Vreugdenhil
A -aaaaaaaaaa James A. Markevitch
A aaaaaaaa-aa Karen Pieper
A aaaaaaaaaaa Michael McNamara
A aaaaaaaa-aa Steven Sharp
A -aaaaaaa-a- Charles Dawson
A -aaaaaaaaa- Shalom Bresticker
A -a-aaaaaaa- Stefen Boyd
- --aaaaa-aa- Stuart Sutherland
A ----------- Drew Lynch
- -----a--aa- Tom Fitzpatrick
- ----------a Peter Flake
A aaaaa----aa Brad Pierce
- ---a------- Mehdi Mohtashemi
- aaaa------- Kurt Baty
- -a--------- Krishna Garlapati
A Jay Lawrence
A Dennis Brophy
A Karen Bartleson
A Steven Dovich dovich@cadence.com
A Francoise Martinolle
Attendees to todays meeting who are DASC members, and who have also
met the attendence requirements of the Working group in order to vote:
Anders Nordstrom
Brad Pierce
Charles Dawson
Gordon Vreugdenhil
Karen Pieper
Michael McNamara
Stefen Boyd
Steve Sharp
Attendees who are DASC members, but who are not current in attendence:
Dennis Brophy
Francoise Martinolle
Jay Lawrence
Karen Bartleson
Steven Dovich
Attendees who are not currently DASC members
Andrew Lynch
James Markevitch
Shalom Bresticker
The VSG further extends a special welcome to first time attendees to
an IEEE 1364 Working Group meeting:
Dennis Brophy
Francoise Martnolle
Karen Bartleson
Steven Dovich
Before the meeting was called to order, Dennis Brophy lead off by
challenging the basis for conducting the meeting, where he detailed
extensively possible ramifications of conducting the meeting without
timely prior delivery of minutes of the previous meeting, including
but not limited to severe damage to the one trillion dollar
electronics market place; the three billion dollar EDA market place,
and the three hundred million dollar design & verification market
place, as well as causing immediate individual exposure of each and
every member of the working group to litigation.
The complete text of the email he sent to every member of the Working
Group is included as an addendum after the end of these minutes for
those interested; however it should be noted that when speaking he
detailed additional dire consequences in addition to those cited in
his email.
Because this email includes a reiteration of allegations of
impropriety in the running of this Working Group, allegations which
have been found to have no basis by the DASC, also included is the
response of the DASC to these same charges, in the interest of total
disclosure to those that might come accross these minutes in
isolation.
Further included is the text of Dennis's acceptance of some of these
repudiations of his allegations, as well as his appeal of others.
In any case, approximately fifteen minutes of heated discussion
ensued, with significant questions was raised by a member of the
working group on the timing of this email:
Why did Dennis send this email just hours before the meeting (sent at
5:00 am for an 8:30 am meeting), rather than a few days previous, so
that matter could be investigated and handled without consuming the
valuable time of the Working Group? The email is very carefully
constructed, so clearly this was not a quick question arrived at
before the meeting.
In the future people desiring a copy of the minutes are encoraged to
send a request to the list asking for the minutes, rather than
composing such a long message.
The matter was finally resolved when it was determined that the indeed
the minutes of the May 27th meeting were posted to the group on May
27th, to 4 of the 5 email reflectors used by the working group,
however not to the one that Dennis checked. At this point Dennis
removed his objection to the meeting taking place.
Next Dennis reminded all that the text of the IEEE Patent Policy must
be read; and the chair asked Dennis to read this policy, a request
which he declined, as he was present only by cell phone. The chair
then read the text of Patent Policy.
With order restored, the meeting was called to order at 8:50.
Jay Lawrence moved to approve minutes; no objection was noted.
The orignal agenda for the meeting had called for review of ETF
activities from 8:30 until 9; with a break at 9 to review status on
the PAR and consider any revision in the groups work plan. After
that, the agenda called for resumption of review of ETF activities,
and then review of PTF and BTF activities as time allowed. The reason
for reviewing the work plan at 9 was to accomodate the schedules of
certain interested parties who had other committments preventing their
attendence at other times.
As it was 8:56, the group agreed to immediately move to reviewing the
work plan.
The chair reported that the VSG has received three donations of
technology so far, which appear to be in good order. Interested
parties can review the content of these donations on the website
http://www.boyd.com/1364_btf
As we had the Chairman of Accellera in attendence (Dennis Brophy), he
was asked for any information about whether or not Accellera planned
to make any donations. Dennis stated that the Accellera System
Verilog committee had decided to perform additional work on their
proposed extension to IEEE 1364-2001 Verilog, targeting completion of
this effort by March of 2004. Karen Pieper, who serves also as a chair
of an Accellera System Verilog sub committee, noted that there has not
been a decision to actually donate anything at that time; rather that
it was decided not to donate anything sooner than that time.
Next a progress report was given by a member of the sub group tasked
with the effort of obtaining user input on the content and priority of
work. Jay reported that the group (which consists of Jay Lawrence, Tom
Fitzpatrick & Stuart Sutherland) are working on gathering addtional
user input, via a survey they are working on which seeks relative
ranking by users on the priority of the work before us. The survey
will be completed on June 26th, and plans are to seek input from users
via conferences, email, web based forms over then next few months. In
addition to other forums, input will be sought at a Synopsys forum
occuring the 2nd week of September and at a Cadence forum occuring the
3rd week of September.
Then the question was raised on what would happen if a donation was
recieved after the due date in the VSG's Work Plan. It was noted by
Steven Dovich that it may make sense to target later donations into a
second overlapping PAR we would open that runs concurrently with the
existing PAR; this has worked well in his experience in other IEEE
Working Groups.
After some additional discussion, it was moved by Stefen Boyd and
seconded by Anders Nordstrom that:
Donations made to the IEEE 1364 WG before the end of August will be
considered for inclusion in the 2005 PAR. Donations received later
may be considered for inclusion in this project, or may fail to make
it due to lack of time. Our work priorities will be developed based
on user input obtained in user forums conducted in September.
While due to various organizational rules of the group, only certain
individuals had the right to have their voted counted, a vote was
taken of all in attendence on this important matter, in order to
work towards maximum consensus.
In favor: Jay Lawrence, Charles Dawson, Shalom Brestiker, Anders Nordstrom,
Michael McNamara, Karen Pieper, Dennis Brophy, Steven Dovich, Steve Sharp,
Francoise Martinolle, Gordon Vreugdenhil
Opposed: none.
Abstain: Karen Bartleson
Missing: James Markewitz, Andrew Lynch
The motion passed unanimously, with one abstention.
Then the group took up the next item on the agenda, which was to
review and consider for approval the activities of the Errata Task
Force.
At this point many attendees left the meeting, especially those not
enfranchised. Remaining were:
Anders Nordstrom
Brad Pierce
Charles Dawson
Gordon Vreugdenhil
Karen Pieper
Michael McNamara
Stefen Boyd
Steve Sharp
Those seeking more information on these issues are directed to
http://www.boyd.com/1364_btf, where one can access these items by
issue number. As is usual practice, these matters are presented to
the VSG by one of the chairs of the task force; discussion ensues; and
only votes of those opposed or abstaing are noted.
Issue 3: Moved by Stefen, Seconded by Karen:
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 47: Moved by Stefen, Seconded by Karen:
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 128: Moved by Stefen, Seconded by Karen:
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 156: Move: Stefen , Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 160, 161, 163: Move: Stefen, Second Gordon
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 166: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 168: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 169: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 173: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 176: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 177: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 179: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 181: Moved to close as superceded by Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 182: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 193: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 194: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 195: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 196: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 200: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 216: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 218: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 219: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 221: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 224: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 228: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Friendly amendment by Karen:
2. Change the Examples preceding Example 1,
starting with "reg [31:0] big_vect;" through
"dword[8*sel +:8] = big_vect[7:0]; // Replace the byte selected."
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 229: Moved Karen, Second Stefen
Opposed:
Abstain:
Issue 231: Moved Stefen, Second Karen
Opposed:
Abstain:
As the time was then 10:30, the chair suspended review of the ETF
issues, and asked for any new business.
There was one item, where the chair was asked, and agreed to ask the
DASC to send email to everyone that is a member, confirming their
status.
Michael McNamara
Chairman, IEEE 1364 Working Group
Supporting material
Included is Dennis's email to the working group questioning the
legality of this meeting, as well as reiteration of allegations he has
made about this group to the DASC. For completeness, also included is
his original allegations to the DASC, as well as the DASC's ruling on
his allegations.
Dennis's email to the Working Group:
| From: "Brophy, Dennis"
| Sender: owner-1364@accellera.org
| To: 1364@accellera.org
| Cc: stds-dasc@eda.org
| Subject: 1364-2005 Issues
| Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 04:59:55 -0700
|
| Dear 1364-2005 Working Group,
|
| I have raised issues with the IEEE regarding the organization,
| constitution and operation of 1364-2005. It will take time to address
| these issues, but it is important to understand that my assertion of
| operational issues may have an impact on indemnification generally
| provided by the IEEE for working groups.
|
| Some of these issues relate to how the IEEE Computer Society's DASC
| has improperly constituted 1364-2005.
|
| I seek proper organization as permitted by IEEE rules and mandated
| policies and procedures. I send this email to the group to ensure you
| are aware of these issues since the DASC Chair is unavailable until
| next week. So I doubt he will have an opportunity to communicate with
| this working group, or any working group until next week.
|
| In the ETF/BTF meetings last week, some may have characterized them as
| interesting or amusing. I respectfully disagree with this
| characterization and find them to be serious. In fact, if IEEE groups
| do not follow prescribed rules, they can lose IEEE indemnification.
| This means claims of collusion, unfair trade practices,
| anti-competitive behavior, if asserted, would need to be personally
| defended. In the absence of IEEE indemnification, team members may be
| left to defend for themselves such claims as the DASC recognizes
| "individual" participation in standards, not "entity" participation.
|
| Since voting privileges in all DASC sponsored working groups require
| membership in the DASC, I will assume that most of you are aware of
| these issues. (In fact, the notion DASC membership requirements were
| communicated to you in 1996 and 1997. But, I understand this may
| still come as a shock to the working group.) If you are an active
| "observer" and have no voting membership rights in the DASC, you may
| be unaware of these issues. Here is a brief review of them:
|
| 1. 1364-2005 WG Chair was not elected by DASC membership are required
| by DASC bylaws
|
| The DASC has no notion of a chair position going from one PAR
| version to the next. Thus when 1364-2001 expired in favor of
| 1364-2005, the DASC was required to confirm the current chair or
| elect a new chair. I submitted a claim to the DASC Chair of DASC
| membership disenfranchisement.
|
| Just so you are aware, the IEEE Standards Association has
| established that the chair goes with the PAR. When you create a
| new PAR, a new election for chair is needed.
|
| 2. 1364-2001/2005 The 2001 chair and appointed 2005 chair did not
| hold needed DASC membership
|
| A DASC WG Chair must be a DASC member. The membership information
| for 2003 first given to the team has shown the 2001 chair and
| appointed 2005 chair to not be a member. The DASC Chair accepted
| an explanation of clerical error and confirmed chair-ship. I have
| contested the DASC Chairs confirmation and requested the formation
| of an appeals panel. I found no membership in DASC for the
| formative years of 1364-2001 (1997, 1998, 1999 and for the
| ballot).
|
| 3. P1364 Not Properly Approved
|
| The DASC Chair in concert with the 1364-2001 WG Chair have failed
| to maintain a qualified membership list. This is a complaint of
| inaction and cannot be dismissed using the 30-day clause. And, if
| the argument continues to be the 30-day clause, I again repeat
| that I filed notice 17 days after I "knew, or reasonable should
| have known" in keeping with the 30-day rule.
|
| 4. Non-Notification of 1364-2005 Press Release
|
| I found no discussion of the press release in 1364 WG meeting
| minutes. Thus, it appears to me that the press release was
| created in secret and without team review and approval. I don't
| think this meets anyone's test of openness and consensus. This is
| a major issue of concern within the IEEE SAB that they discussed,
| approved and issued modifications to the issuing of statements. I
| applaud the DASC Chair sending out what will constitute an part of
| the June 2003 update to the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operation
| Manual to the DASC Steering Committee. The press release took
| positions which were not made by a properly constituted WG.
|
| In addition to the issues I have with the DASC operations, there are
| concerns with 1364-2005 operation. As the EFT/BTF meetings concluded
| last week, there was discussion on voting rights. I note that Shalom
| sent out 1995 procedures. The first meeting of 1364-2005 should have
| done the same thing.
|
| I call on 1364-2005 to do first things first. Establish rules of
| operation.
|
| To that end, I note from the 1364@accellera.org discussion, there was
| a VSG meeting on 5/5 and on 5/27. We are now going to have another
| VSG meeting today. I have found no meeting minutes for 5/27.
|
| The question I have is, was there a meeting on 5/27? If so, IEEE
| Computer Society (CS) Standards Association Board (SAB) Policies and
| Procedures (P&Ps) and DASC Bylaws mandate the 5/27 meeting minutes be
| published within 30 days with advance notice of meetings. Therefore,
| another VSG meeting cannot be held until minutes are published. If
| the meeting is to be held less than 30 days since the last meeting,
| the minutes need to be published within 2/3 the time from the last
| meeting to the next meeting. (I've no email with the minutes and I
| cannot find them at
| http://www.boydtechinc.com/1364/minutes/2003_05_05.html. Nor can I
| find a meeting cancellation notice.)
|
| In the case of today's meeting, the minutes should have been published
| 18 days after the 5/27 meeting, or on or before 6/14. Since this is
| not the case, if the meeting is held today, I will protest this
| action. Meeting minutes play an important role to document what
| happened in the previous meeting and allow all to better participate
| in the next meeting.
|
| As an aside, a meeting can occur with advanced notice after 30 days if
| the meeting minutes are published. If the minutes are published
| today, we could meeting any day on or after 6/27.
|
| My suggestion is the 1364 working group establish their policies and
| follow prescribed rules.
|
| I will be on the call today if the group would like me to discuss
| these issues with them further.
|
| Respectfully,
|
| Dennis
|
|
For completeness, I provide some background. Dennis made a series of
allegations to the chairman of the DASC about the conduct of the DASC
committee, including all of the allegations he makes here. The
chairman of the DASC investigated these claims, and made a ruling, and
sent a formal response of the ruling, where he found no basis for any
of these claims. There does exits the right of appeal of such
rulings, and Dennis has done so on some of these allegations, while
accepting the ruling of the DASC on others.
Here is the response of the chairman of DASC to Dennis's charges:
| From: "Paul J. Menchini"
| Sender: owner-stds-dasc-sc@eda.org
| To: stds-dasc@dasc.org, stds-dasc-sc@dasc.org
| Cc: moorej@mitre.org
| Subject: My Response to the Recent Allegations
| Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 15:23:35 -0400 (EDT)
|
| Dear DASC Members,
|
| Late last week allegations were made of imperfections in the process and
| procedures of DASC; and because of these imperfections, certain demands
| were made regarding the withdrawal or nullification of actions taken by
| the DASC Steering Committee.
|
| I have spent the intervening week talking to the parties involved, as
| well as the IEEE Computer Society Standards Activity Board Chair (who,
| for the purposes of the DASC, is my boss) and our Computer Society
| Administrator. I have also been doing research into various aspects of
| our governance. I am now ready to respond.
|
| Before covering the allegations, demands and my response, I wish to
| first discuss some background information.
|
|
| 1.0 Background
| --------------
|
| 1.1 Governance
|
| Like all organizations, the DASC operates under a set of rules. Because
| of the nature of the environment in which the DASC operates, these rules
| are hierarchically specified. The hierarchy is described in Section 2.0
| of the SAB Policies and Procedures
| (; for more information
| on the SAB, see http://computer.org/standards). From most binding to
| least binding, the hierarchy of rules is (see note 1):
|
| 1. Working Group/Study Group P&P (see note 2, below)
| 2. Sponsor Policies and Procedures (http://dasc.org/bylaws.html, but
| see note 3, below)
| 3. Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised
| 4. IEEE CS SAB P&P (http://computer.org/standards/ORIENT/p&ptoc.html)
| 5. IEEE CS BoG Resolutions (not on line, as far as I can tell)
| 6. IEEE CS P&P, Section 11 (URL given in 4 is faulty)
| 7. IEEE CS Constitution & Bylaws (URL given in 4 is faulty)
| 8. IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
| (http://standards.ieee.org/guides/index.html)
| 9. IEEE Board of Directors Resolutions (not on line, as far as I can
| tell)
| 10. IEEE P&P, Section 8 (http://www.ieee/org/policies/)
| 11. IEEE Standards Board Bylaws
| (http://standards.ieee.org/guides/index.html)
| 12. IEEE-SA Operations Manual
| (http://standards.ieee.org/sa/sa-om-main.html)
| 13. IEEE Standards Association Bylaws (URL given in 4 is faulty)
| 14. IEEE Bylaws (http://www.ieee.org/bylaws)
|
| Notes:
|
| 1. All URLs are from item 4, section 2.0, except where the URL is
| faulty, in which case I've indicated that it is faulty. Any
| transcription errors are mine.
|
| 2. Item 1 applies only to WG/SG actions.
|
| 3. I, as DASC Chair, am the sponsor for Computer/Design Automation
| (C/DA) standards.
|
| 1.2 Right of Appeal
|
| All actions taken at any level in the IEEE have a right of appeal.
| However, this right is not unlimited. The right of appeal is covered
| under the rules described in 1.1.
|
| Section 9 of the CS SAB P&P (item 4, above) covers appeals. Since I do
| not believe that either Robert's Rules or the DASC bylaws cover appeals,
| I believe that this section governs the appeals process within DASC.
|
| 1.3 Membership Administration
|
| We require membership in the DASC for certain working group members and
| for all Steering Committee members. We have, for many years, depended
| on the Computer Society Administrator (presently, John Daniel) to
| administer the receipt of payment and the maintenance of our roster.
|
| Since some of the allegations presented last week concern the membership
| status of certain members, I have communicated with our CS
| Administrator, who reports:
|
| The dates in the "joined" column [of the DASC list he
| maintains--PJM] currently signifies nothing more than the month
| in which I became aware that the application was submitted.
| This [date--PJM] can represent different times in processing an
| applicant's membership, for example, the date may represent the
| time at which the application was received, or the time at which
| the card was processed, or even the time at which a credit card
| batch report was made available to me (sometimes a month or more
| after the application was received in the office). I understand
| that this may present problems for your membership, therefore I
| have discussed the process with our accounting department and
| arranged for all applications to be sent directly to me upon
| arrival so that I may record the membership date as the date of
| arrival at our office. I hope that this will clarify the
| process and and provide a more accurate record of DASC
| membership."
|
| Moreover, as I've previously documented, in my own case there is not
| only an discrepancy in the date of my joining the DASC for 2003 but also
| a factual error in the form of payment I used. I have also received a
| number of other reports from DASC members indicating similar sorts of
| errors; one in particular shows him as joining 3 months before his
| credit card was charged.
|
| Since one particular allegation concerns the apparent lack of DASC
| membership of one WG Chair (as is required by our bylaws), I
| specifically asked our CS Administrator whether it was likely or
| conceivable that a membership application could be lost. He said that,
| indeed, it could easily be lost in their processing system.
|
| In consulting with this WG Chair, he claims that he did send in his
| application in November, 2002, and has found the original membership
| application with a consistent date. However, he found no charge on his
| credit card between November, 2002 and the date of our conversation that
| would indicate that his membership had been processed. Accordingly, he
| took immediate action to remedy the situation by re-submitting his
| application for DASC membership. It has been accepted by the CS
| Administrator, and the WG Chair is now current in his DASC membership.
|
| 1.4 Approval of Press Releases and other Public Statements
|
| Following the hierarchy described above, the first reference to a
| publicity policy I find is in item 8, the SA Standards Board Operations
| Manual, specifically in clause 5.1.5 and its subclauses. In it,
| "[s]ponsors are encouraged to prepare press releases to promote their
| activities" and "IEEE Standards staff is available to assist...."
|
| Thus, there is apparently no requirement for preapproval.
|
| The only requirement is that a copy of every release developed by a
| sponsor is to be submitted to the Secretary of the IEEE-SA Standards
| Board, which I believe is currently Judith Gorman (j.gorman@ieee.org).
|
|
| 2.0 Allegations and Demands for Relief
| --------------------------------------
|
| I believe that the following specific allegations and demands for relief
| have been made:
|
| 1. Allegation: That the changes to the VLSG PAR (given the number P1647
| by the NeSCom Administrator) made after DASC-SC approval are
| substantive.
|
| Demand for Relief: The DASC-SC must reballot the latest changes to
| P1647.
|
| 2. Allegation: DASC policies regarding the need for DASC membership of
| voting working and study group members were not followed when the
| VLSG approved the PAR.
|
| Demand for Relief: Invalidate the approval of the VLSG PAR by the
| VLSG. Withdraw the PAR from NeSCom consideration.
|
| 3. Allegation: The P1364 Chair is not, as of 5/22/03, a DASC member.
| Therefore, the position is vacated.
|
| Demand for Relief: Provide for a new P1364 Chair.
|
| 4. No P1364 voting members are DASC members, as is required by the DASC
| bylaws.
|
| Demand for Relief: Invalidate the current 1364 PAR.
|
| 5. Allegation: The P1364 Chair has issued a press release concerning
| the group's activities without approval.
|
| Demand for Relief: Disqualify the current P1364 Chair from running
| for the position.
|
|
| 3.0 My Response to the Demands for Relief
| -----------------------------------------
|
| 1. I do not believe that any consensus of the DASC-SC has developed
| surrounding the substantivity of the latest changes (made at the
| behest of a NeSCom earlier reviewer). In particular, the NeSCom
| reviewer, who is also a member of the DASC-SC, the P1647 Chair and
| the DASC Chair have stated that, in their opinion, the changes are
| not substantive.
|
| Regardless, the P1647 Chair has agreed to withdraw the changes made
| subsequent to DASC-SC approval and submit P1647 to NeSCom as
| approved by the DASC-SC. Therefore, no action is necessary.
|
| 2. My records indicate that the VLSG opened the PAR ballot on 1/21/03;
| it closed on 1/28/03, and the results were announced on 1/31/03.
| The allegation that the vote was faulty was made on 5/22/03, which
| is well beyond the 30-day limit for appeals. Therefore, no action
| will be taken.
|
| 3. As I've previously mentioned, the process for maintaining the
| membership records has a number of faults, which are being
| rectified. In the case of the P1364 Chair in particular, I believe
| that there is every possibility that his membership application was
| sent in in a timely fashion and was misplaced at the Computer
| Society. I therefore do not think that it is appropriate to vacate
| the position based on what may be a simple administrative problem,
| especially since the P1364 Chair asserts that he did apply in a
| timely fashion, and, once notified of the problem, immediately
| corrected the problem by reapplying.
|
| I note in passing that Chairs of other DASC WGs apparently were not
| members of the DASC as of the time of this complaint and no protests
| against their tenure have been received by me.
|
| 4. My records indicate that I opened the vote on this PAR on 1/22/02
| and it closed on 2/3/2003. The results were announced on 2/3/2003
| and submitted to NeSCom the same day. The Standards Board approved
| the PAR on 3/20/03. The allegations of irregularities in the
| approval of this PAR was made on 5/22/03, which is well after the
| 30-day limit for appeals. Therefore, no action will be taken.
|
| 5. As previously discussed, I can find no requirement to have press
| releases approved prior to issuance. I did ask the P1364 Chair to
| provide a copy to the IEEE-SA BoG Secretary (as is required), and he
| has complied. I therefore find no basis for any action.
|
|
| 4.0 Concluding Remarks
| ----------------------
|
| I note that these decisions and actions (or lack thereof) are themselves
| subject to appeal, again subject to a 30-day limit. My understanding is
| that the process requires that the sponsor be the first level of appeal.
| If necessary, I will appoint a board to hear the appeal according to the
| SAB P&P. (See section 9, as previously referenced.) After the decision
| at this level, further appeals are allowed, with the next step being to
| the SAB.
|
| Respectfully Submitted,
|
| Paul Menchini
| DASC Chair
| C/DA Sponsor
|
Here is Dennis's response to Paul's email:
| From: "Brophy, Dennis"
| Sender: owner-stds-dasc-sc@eda.org
| To: "Paul J. Menchini" , stds-dasc@dasc.org,
| stds-dasc-sc@dasc.org
| Cc: moorej@mitre.org, j.gorman@ieee.org, r.gertz@ieee.org, j.haasz@ieee.org,
| d.ringle@ieee.org, a.ortiz@ieee.org
| Subject: RE: My Response to the Recent Allegations
| Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 08:48:56 -0700
|
| TO: Paul Menchini, DASC Chair
| DASC Steering Committee
| DASC Membership
| CC: Angela Ortiz, Computer Society DASC Staff Liaison
| Mr. Moore, IEEE Computer Society Standards Activity Board Chair
| Judith Gorman, IEEE-SA Managing Director
| Rona Gertz, IEEE-SA Governance
| Jodi Haasz, Senior Administrator, IEEE-SA Governance & Electronic Processes
| David Ringle, Senior Administrator, IEEE-SA Governance
|
| Dear Mr. Menchini, DASC Steering Committee & DASC Membership:
|
| I have reviewed Mr. Menchini's findings. My complaints are
| serious in that failing to act can have dire consequences to a $300M
| design verification market, a $4B EDA market and harm a $1T
| electronics market. For each complaint, I respond as follows:
|
| Complaint #1: Unapproved PAR Changes
| =============
|
| I concur. I also concurred to a return of the previously approved
| PAR that was amended at the IEEE SA NesCom meeting last week. No
| further action is sought and the complaint is removed.
|
| Complaint #2: Voting Irregularities
| =============
|
| I do not concur with the DASC Chair's findings. I ask that an
| appeals panel be convened to address this issue.
|
| The complaint was rejected for failing to meet a 30-day test from
| the time when the vote concluded. I believe that the DASC Chair has
| failed to act to ensure proper voting. IEEE-SA SAB Operations
| Manual states in ?5.8.2 that an appeal of a decision may be made
| "within 30 days after the date of notification of action" and "at
| any time with respect to inaction."
|
| The complaint to go back and vote was based on the "inaction" of the
| DASC Chair in concert with "inaction" of the VLSG SAG Chair to
| maintain a properly constituted group. As such, this complaint
| falls in the a complaint of inaction which has no time limit. I
| remind all, that ignorance of the rules has never been found to be a
| defense and should not be applied here. I do, however, use the
| excuse of ignorance to maintain my professional trust in both the
| DASC Chair and the VLSG SG Chair.
|
| Since I suspect the time limit argument will continue to be used, I
| further point to CS SAB P&Ps ?9.2 that indicates one must make a
| complaint "not later than thirty (30) days after the appellant knew,
| or reasonable should have known, of an action to be appealed."
|
| When I questioned the DASC Chair on being able to spend DASC funds
| in April, it was clear to me that given the VLSG SG PAR vote, all
| those who voted were members. But when I requested a list of DASC
| members, I found on 5 May 2003 that there were only 23 members -
| well short of the 200+ that participated in the PAR vote. On 22 May
| 2003, I filed my complaint. The complaint was filed 17 days after I
| "knew, or reasonable should have known" of the problem. Even if the
| 30 day argument is use, I meet that test.
|
| However, I fundamentally believe this is a protest of inaction and
| even if this is disputed, I filed a complaint well under the 30 day
| limit of when I first knew of this.
|
| I appeal this complaint.
|
| Complaint #3: P1364 Chair No Valid
| =============
|
| I do not concur with your findings. I ask that an appeals panel be
| convened to address this issue.
|
| I fully agree with you Paul that one should extend professional
| courtesy when a preponderance of the evidence suggests that clerical
| error exists before a WG chair position is vacated. Even thought
| our bylaws only mandate one message from the DASC Chair to the
| membership to renew membership, I know that several messages have
| gone out as reminders. In the case of 2003 membership, this is no
| exception. I also know that it has been DASC behavior to extend
| prior years membership until 1 April of the next year just in case
| issues with the Computer Society need to be corrected.
|
| Having sufficient time and notice to cure should suggest that WG/SG
| Chairs and DASC Chair were given ample opportunity to check and cure
| but did not.
|
| The timely completion of membership responsibilities is rarely
| vacated at the SA level. I know from first hand experience. How
| many times have SA dues kept someone out of a ballot constituency?
| All of us as WG Chairs have probably had these issues. In the case
| of 1364-2001 ballot, I visited Japan at the request of the previous
| 1364-2001 WG Chair and met with many who could be in the ballot
| constituency but the SA membership requirement was not understood.
| It was not even comprehended after a personal visit, the cost of
| which was much greater than the fee for membership. In the end, the
| past 1364-2001 WG Chair asked for Open Verilog International to pay
| the SA fees for these people. At the time I was chairman of Open
| Verilog International and made a motion that was approved to pay
| their SA fees. (Certainly this was a lot cheaper than even the
| business trip to Japan, but demonstrates my support to the fidelity
| of the IEEE process even as we debated this within the DASC! .)
|
| So, I think it is clear that the value of membership and the
| requirement of membership is important. To test the 1364-2001 WG
| Chair's own value of this importance, I think prior membership
| information may serve to help us judge if professional courtesy
| should be extended.
|
| Specifically, I note that the 1364-2001 WG Chair has been a member
| of the 1364 team and part of the group that created and balloted
| 1364-1995. Likewise, he is listed as a member of the 1364-2001
| development team. But I find it rather odd that he is not listed as
| a member of the ballot constituency for 1364-2001. For something so
| important, the ballot of 1364-2001, I found it odd that the WG
| Chair's membership was either not in place or he elected not to
| participate in the vote. So then I sought to understand if the WG
| chair was a DASC member during the creation of 1364-2001.
|
| Knowing how we discussed the membership rules during 1996 and how we
| applied them from 1997 on, one would think he would have membership
| in the DASC, not just out of respect to the rules, but the
| requirements for his vote to count in the 1364 WG meetings. The
| critical years for 1364-2001 were from 1997-1999 and one would
| expect membership for certain during that time frame.
|
| For 1997 I find he was not a listed member.
| For 1998 I find he was not a listed member.
| For 1999 I find he was not a listed member.
|
| And from 2000 to 2002, the DASC chair made no membership information
| available. I would suggest that we seek the historical information
| for these years in the appeal. Certainly DASC membership in
| 2000-2002 might help alter the perception created by the other
| evidence.
|
| And, for 2003, I found that he was not listed as a member as of the
| 5 May 2003 date.
|
| In the face of overwhelming evidence that the WG chair may have
| never been a DASC member and has ignored past WG chair notices to
| the contrary and DASC Chair notices as well, I suggest relying on
| Computer Society clerical errors to be suspicious and not in keeping
| with a preponderance of the evidence. That evidence suggests the WG
| Chair may have never been a DASC member.
|
| As a longtime, continuous DASC member, I suggest that professional
| courtesy be extended to me an a new election called.
|
| I appeal this complaint.
|
| Complaint #4: P1364 Not Properly Approved
| =============
|
| I do not concur with your findings. I ask that an appeals panel be
| convened to address this issue.
|
| My argument is the same inaction argument found in Complaint #1.
| The DASC Chair in concert with the 1364-2001 WG Chair have failed to
| maintain a qualified membership list. This is a complaint of
| inaction and cannot be dismissed using the 30-day clause. And, if
| the argument continues to be the 30-day clause, I again repeat that
| I filed notice 17 days after I "knew, or reasonable should have
| known" in keeping with the 30-day rule.
|
| I appeal this complaint.
|
| Complaint #5: Non-Notification of Press Release
| =============
|
| I do not concur with your findings. I ask that an appeals panel be
| convened to address this issue.
|
| The press release was created in secret and without team review and
| approval. I don't think this meets anyone's test of openness and
| consensus. This is a major issue of concern within the IEEE SAB
| that they discussed, approved and issued modifications to the
| issuing of statements. I applaud the DASC Chair sending out what
| will constitute an part of the June 2003 update to the IEEE-SA
| Standards Board Operation Manual to the DASC Steering Committee.
| The press release took positions which were not made by a properly
| constituted WG.
|
| I appeal this complaint.
|
| -----Original Message-----
|
| From: Paul J. Menchini [mailto:mench@mench.com]
| Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 12:24 PM
| To: stds-dasc@server.dasc.org; stds-dasc-sc@server.dasc.org
| Cc: moorej@mitre.org
| Subject: My Response to the Recent Allegations
|
|
| Dear DASC Members,
|
| Late last week allegations were made of imperfections in the process and
| procedures of DASC; and because of these imperfections, certain demands
| were made regarding the withdrawal or nullification of actions taken by
| the DASC Steering Committee.
|
| I have spent the intervening week talking to the parties involved, as
| well as the IEEE Computer Society Standards Activity Board Chair (who,
| for the purposes of the DASC, is my boss) and our Computer Society
| Administrator. I have also been doing research into various aspects of
| our governance. I am now ready to respond.
|
| Before covering the allegations, demands and my response, I wish to
| first discuss some background information.
|
|
| 1.0 Background
| --------------
|
| 1.1 Governance
|
| Like all organizations, the DASC operates under a set of rules. Because
| of the nature of the environment in which the DASC operates, these rules
| are hierarchically specified. The hierarchy is described in Section 2.0
| of the SAB Policies and Procedures
| (http://computer.org/standards/ORIENT/p&ptoc.html; for more information
| on the SAB, see http://computer.org/standards). From most binding to
| least binding, the hierarchy of rules is (see note 1):
|
| 1. Working Group/Study Group P&P (see note 2, below)
| 2. Sponsor Policies and Procedures (http://dasc.org/bylaws.html, but
| see note 3, below)
| 3. Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised
| 4. IEEE CS SAB P&P (http://computer.org/standards/ORIENT/p&ptoc.html)
| 5. IEEE CS BoG Resolutions (not on line, as far as I can tell)
| 6. IEEE CS P&P, Section 11 (URL given in 4 is faulty)
| 7. IEEE CS Constitution & Bylaws (URL given in 4 is faulty)
| 8. IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
| (http://standards.ieee.org/guides/index.html)
| 9. IEEE Board of Directors Resolutions (not on line, as far as I can
| tell)
| 10. IEEE P&P, Section 8 (http://www.ieee/org/policies/)
| 11. IEEE Standards Board Bylaws
| (http://standards.ieee.org/guides/index.html)
| 12. IEEE-SA Operations Manual
| (http://standards.ieee.org/sa/sa-om-main.html)
| 13. IEEE Standards Association Bylaws (URL given in 4 is faulty)
| 14. IEEE Bylaws (http://www.ieee.org/bylaws)
|
| Notes:
|
| 1. All URLs are from item 4, section 2.0, except where the URL is
| faulty, in which case I've indicated that it is faulty. Any
| transcription errors are mine.
|
| 2. Item 1 applies only to WG/SG actions.
|
| 3. I, as DASC Chair, am the sponsor for Computer/Design Automation
| (C/DA) standards.
|
| 1.2 Right of Appeal
|
| All actions taken at any level in the IEEE have a right of appeal.
| However, this right is not unlimited. The right of appeal is covered
| under the rules described in 1.1.
|
| Section 9 of the CS SAB P&P (item 4, above) covers appeals. Since I do
| not believe that either Robert's Rules or the DASC bylaws cover appeals,
| I believe that this section governs the appeals process within DASC.
|
| 1.3 Membership Administration
|
| We require membership in the DASC for certain working group members and
| for all Steering Committee members. We have, for many years, depended
| on the Computer Society Administrator (presently, John Daniel) to
| administer the receipt of payment and the maintenance of our roster.
|
| Since some of the allegations presented last week concern the membership
| status of certain members, I have communicated with our CS
| Administrator, who reports:
|
| The dates in the "joined" column [of the DASC list he
| maintains--PJM] currently signifies nothing more than the month
| in which I became aware that the application was submitted.
| This [date--PJM] can represent different times in processing an
| applicant's membership, for example, the date may represent the
| time at which the application was received, or the time at which
| the card was processed, or even the time at which a credit card
| batch report was made available to me (sometimes a month or more
| after the application was received in the office). I understand
| that this may present problems for your membership, therefore I
| have discussed the process with our accounting department and
| arranged for all applications to be sent directly to me upon
| arrival so that I may record the membership date as the date of
| arrival at our office. I hope that this will clarify the
| process and and provide a more accurate record of DASC
| membership."
|
| Moreover, as I've previously documented, in my own case there is not
| only an discrepancy in the date of my joining the DASC for 2003 but also
| a factual error in the form of payment I used. I have also received a
| number of other reports from DASC members indicating similar sorts of
| errors; one in particular shows him as joining 3 months before his
| credit card was charged.
|
| Since one particular allegation concerns the apparent lack of DASC
| membership of one WG Chair (as is required by our bylaws), I
| specifically asked our CS Administrator whether it was likely or
| conceivable that a membership application could be lost. He said that,
| indeed, it could easily be lost in their processing system.
|
| In consulting with this WG Chair, he claims that he did send in his
| application in November, 2002, and has found the original membership
| application with a consistent date. However, he found no charge on his
| credit card between November, 2002 and the date of our conversation that
| would indicate that his membership had been processed. Accordingly, he
| took immediate action to remedy the situation by re-submitting his
| application for DASC membership. It has been accepted by the CS
| Administrator, and the WG Chair is now current in his DASC membership.
|
| 1.4 Approval of Press Releases and other Public Statements
|
| Following the hierarchy described above, the first reference to a
| publicity policy I find is in item 8, the SA Standards Board Operations
| Manual, specifically in clause 5.1.5 and its subclauses. In it,
| "[s]ponsors are encouraged to prepare press releases to promote their
| activities" and "IEEE Standards staff is available to assist...."
|
| Thus, there is apparently no requirement for preapproval.
|
| The only requirement is that a copy of every release developed by a
| sponsor is to be submitted to the Secretary of the IEEE-SA Standards
| Board, which I believe is currently Judith Gorman (j.gorman@ieee.org).
|
|
| 2.0 Allegations and Demands for Relief
| --------------------------------------
|
| I believe that the following specific allegations and demands for relief
| have been made:
|
| 1. Allegation: That the changes to the VLSG PAR (given the number P1647
| by the NeSCom Administrator) made after DASC-SC approval are
| substantive.
|
| Demand for Relief: The DASC-SC must reballot the latest changes to
| P1647.
|
| 2. Allegation: DASC policies regarding the need for DASC membership of
| voting working and study group members were not followed when the
| VLSG approved the PAR.
|
| Demand for Relief: Invalidate the approval of the VLSG PAR by the
| VLSG. Withdraw the PAR from NeSCom consideration.
|
| 3. Allegation: The P1364 Chair is not, as of 5/22/03, a DASC member.
| Therefore, the position is vacated.
|
| Demand for Relief: Provide for a new P1364 Chair.
|
| 4. No P1364 voting members are DASC members, as is required by the DASC
| bylaws.
|
| Demand for Relief: Invalidate the current 1364 PAR.
|
| 5. Allegation: The P1364 Chair has issued a press release concerning
| the group's activities without approval.
|
| Demand for Relief: Disqualify the current P1364 Chair from running
| for the position.
|
|
| 3.0 My Response to the Demands for Relief
| -----------------------------------------
|
| 1. I do not believe that any consensus of the DASC-SC has developed
| surrounding the substantivity of the latest changes (made at the
| behest of a NeSCom earlier reviewer). In particular, the NeSCom
| reviewer, who is also a member of the DASC-SC, the P1647 Chair and
| the DASC Chair have stated that, in their opinion, the changes are
| not substantive.
|
| Regardless, the P1647 Chair has agreed to withdraw the changes made
| subsequent to DASC-SC approval and submit P1647 to NeSCom as
| approved by the DASC-SC. Therefore, no action is necessary.
|
| 2. My records indicate that the VLSG opened the PAR ballot on 1/21/03;
| it closed on 1/28/03, and the results were announced on 1/31/03.
| The allegation that the vote was faulty was made on 5/22/03, which
| is well beyond the 30-day limit for appeals. Therefore, no action
| will be taken.
|
| 3. As I've previously mentioned, the process for maintaining the
| membership records has a number of faults, which are being
| rectified. In the case of the P1364 Chair in particular, I believe
| that there is every possibility that his membership application was
| sent in in a timely fashion and was misplaced at the Computer
| Society. I therefore do not think that it is appropriate to vacate
| the position based on what may be a simple administrative problem,
| especially since the P1364 Chair asserts that he did apply in a
| timely fashion, and, once notified of the problem, immediately
| corrected the problem by reapplying.
|
| I note in passing that Chairs of other DASC WGs apparently were not
| members of the DASC as of the time of this complaint and no protests
| against their tenure have been received by me.
|
| 4. My records indicate that I opened the vote on this PAR on 1/22/02
| and it closed on 2/3/2003. The results were announced on 2/3/2003
| and submitted to NeSCom the same day. The Standards Board approved
| the PAR on 3/20/03. The allegations of irregularities in the
| approval of this PAR was made on 5/22/03, which is well after the
| 30-day limit for appeals. Therefore, no action will be taken.
|
| 5. As previously discussed, I can find no requirement to have press
| releases approved prior to issuance. I did ask the P1364 Chair to
| provide a copy to the IEEE-SA BoG Secretary (as is required), and he
| has complied. I therefore find no basis for any action.
|
|
| 4.0 Concluding Remarks
| ----------------------
|
| I note that these decisions and actions (or lack thereof) are themselves
| subject to appeal, again subject to a 30-day limit. My understanding is
| that the process requires that the sponsor be the first level of appeal.
| If necessary, I will appoint a board to hear the appeal according to the
| SAB P&P. (See section 9, as previously referenced.) After the decision
| at this level, further appeals are allowed, with the next step being to
| the SAB.
|
| Respectfully Submitted,
|
| Paul Menchini
| DASC Chair
| C/DA Sponsor
|
|