Re: Draft Minutes of June 23rd IEEE 1364 Working Group Meeting

From: Shalom Bresticker (Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com)
Date: Wed Jul 02 2003 - 02:17:38 PDT

  • Next message: Steven Sharp: "Minutes of BTF Meeting July 14, 2003"

    Precedence: bulk

    Mac,

    Comments and corrections:

    1. The meeting occurred on June 24, not June 23.

    2. I have since submitted my DASC membership application.

    3. 5 and 126 were not voted on at this meeting.

    4. The URL http://computer.org/standards/ORIENT/p&ptoc.html should be
    http://computer.org/standards/ORIENT/p&ptoc.htm (i.e., ".htm", not ".html") .

    Shalom

    Michael McNamara wrote:

    > Precedence: bulk
    >
    > Stefen: please place these at http://www.boyd.com
    >
    > Committee: please read these minutes and be ready to suggest
    > corrections and or approve at the next meeting, which is scheduled
    > for: July 28th, 2003, at 8:30 AM Pacific Time.
    >
    > -----------------
    > Meeting called to order 8:35 June 23th, 2003
    >
    > Attendence:
    > Today
    > |
    > v
    > A -aaaaaaaaaa Anders Nordstrom <asic@sympatico.ca>
    > - -aa-a---aaa Clifford E. Cummings <cliffc@sunburst-design.com>
    > - -aaaaaaaaaa Dennis Marsa <drm@xilinx.com>
    > - ---------aa Erich Marchner <erichm@cadence.com>
    > A aaaaaaaa-aa Gordon Vreugdenhil <gvreugde@synopsys.com>
    > A -aaaaaaaaaa James A. Markevitch <jam@magic.com>
    > A aaaaaaaa-aa Karen Pieper <pieper@synopsys.com>
    > A aaaaaaaaaaa Michael McNamara <mac@verisity.com>
    > A aaaaaaaa-aa Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com>
    > A -aaaaaaa-a- Charles Dawson <chas@cadence.com>
    > A -aaaaaaaaa- Shalom Bresticker <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com>
    > A -a-aaaaaaa- Stefen Boyd <stefen@boyd.com>
    > - --aaaaa-aa- Stuart Sutherland <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com>
    > A ----------- Drew Lynch <drew@verisity.com>
    > - -----a--aa- Tom Fitzpatrick <fitz@synopsys.com>
    > - ----------a Peter Flake <peter.flake@synopsys.com>
    > A aaaaa----aa Brad Pierce <brad.pierce@synopsys.com>
    > - ---a------- Mehdi Mohtashemi
    > - aaaa------- Kurt Baty
    > - -a--------- Krishna Garlapati <krishna@synplicity.com>
    > A Jay Lawrence <lawrence@cadence.com>
    > A Dennis Brophy <dennisb@model.com>
    > A Karen Bartleson <Karen.Bartleson@synopsys.com>
    > A Steven Dovich dovich@cadence.com
    > A Francoise Martinolle <fm@cadence.com>
    >
    > 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 charges, in the interest of total
    > disclosure to those that might come across 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 the Chairman of Accellera was 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
    > currently enfranchised. Those remaining with voting rights 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 5: Moved by Stefen, Seconded by Karen:
    > Opposed:
    > Abstain:
    >
    > Issue 47: Moved by Stefen, Seconded by Karen:
    > Opposed:
    > Abstain:
    >
    > Issue 126: 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" <dennisb@model.com>
    > | 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" <mench@mench.com>
    > | 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
    > | (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
    > |
    >
    > Here is Dennis's response to Paul's email:
    >
    > | From: "Brophy, Dennis" <dennisb@model.com>
    > | Sender: owner-stds-dasc-sc@eda.org
    > | To: "Paul J. Menchini" <mench@mench.com>, 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
    > |
    > | 

    --
Shalom Bresticker                           Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
Design & Reuse Methodology                             Tel: +972 9 9522268
Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd.                    Fax: +972 9 9522890
POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL                       Cell: +972 50 441478

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 02 2003 - 02:22:31 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.