RE: More problems with your Apology...

From: William Paulsen (paulsen@cadence.com)
Date: Wed Mar 24 2004 - 12:05:31 PST

  • Next message: Michael McNamara: "Inappropriate "speech" in emails sent to IEEE Working Groups"

    Mac,

    I don't intend to be difficult - I think it's important to understand
    what are the prohibited topics.

    But I don't see anything in the "IEEE What You Need to Know" brochure,
    which you provided a link to, that contradicts my point - that email
    discussions are not restricted.

    Can you please site exactly where email discussions must have the same
    restrictions as official IEEE standards meeting discussions?

    But it seems that a strict interpretation of paragraph 5 in the brochure
    would prohibit any email discussions:

    "When an IEEE standards-development meeting
    is adjourned, it should be over in all respects.
    Carryover discussions incidental to the meeting
    session present too great a temptation for
    "confidential" discussions of prohibited subjects."

    Also, you provided a "workaround" for Cliff's second comment, but not
    for his first comment:

      "At this point, not all tools intend to support XXX. Notably, YYY
      has so-far announced that they will not be supporting XXX."

    I was browsing at www.ieee802.org , the Ethernet standards site, and I
    they mention that discussion of cost during standards development is OK.
    (Discussions of pricing is not OK). So a rewrite/workaround might be:

      "My opinion is that the costs to implement XXX are very great, and I
    think that a tool that is compliant with the standard should be allowed
    to optionally support XXX."

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Michael McNamara [mailto:mac@verisity.com]
    > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:32 PM
    > To: William Paulsen
    > Cc: Clifford E. Cummings; btf@boyd.com; vfv@eda.org
    > Subject: RE: More problems with your Apology...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > -- On Mar 24 2004 at 07:24, William Paulsen sent a message:
    > > To: cliffc@sunburst-design.com, btf@boyd.com, vfv@eda.org
    > > Subject: "RE: More problems with your Apology..."
    > >
    > > I suspect that these guidelines that restrict standards
    > discussions > apply only during official IEEE standards meetings. >
    > > I think it would be difficult to restrict casual email
    > discussions, such > as here. >
    > > Indeed, if email discussions must follow the restriction
    > guidelines, > then I would think that other informal
    > discussions that occur outside > IEEE meetings must also be
    > restricted - such as informal discussions in > hallways, for
    > example, or even private emails. >
    > > But how can these informal discussions be enforced?
    >
    > Please refer to
    > <http://standards.ieee.org/resources/StdsLaw_Brochure.pdf>
    > in the section entitled "Standards and Records, paragraphs 4, 5 & 6.
    >
    > Also note that emails sent to an email reflector of a
    > Standards Group are considered to be part of the activities
    > of the group, and indeed according to the Model Operating
    > Procedures of DASC sponsored IEEE groups may even grant
    > privileges akin to those gained by physical or telephonic attendance.
    >
    > -mac
    >
    > >
    > > Bill Paulsen
    > >
    > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > From: Clifford E. Cummings [mailto:cliffc@sunburst-design.com]
    > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:39 PM
    > > > To: btf@boyd.com; vfv@eda.org
    > > > Subject: Re: More problems with your Apology...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Hi, All -
    > > >
    > > > Please forgive me but I can't find the "second round of
    > distribution"
    > > > mentioned by Alec and referenced by Mac. I know my original
    > > > email to the
    > > > btf and vfv reflectors had bad content but I cannot find
    > the second
    > > > offending email (unless it is my response to Mac's email
    > > > where I replied
    > > > and kept his comments about my original bad references??) > >
    > > > Please let me know what the "second round of distribution" is
    > > > referring to.
    > > > I promise I will appropriately apologize for that
    > content too. > >
    > > > I guess I need a generic EDA company to write me a generic
    > > > linting tool to
    > > > lint my emails for generic offensive content before I forward
    > > > comments to
    > > > the generic standards reflectors (this is getting way too
    > > > complicated!)
    > > >
    > > > Regards - Cliff
    > > >
    > > > At 03:28 PM 3/23/2004, Michael McNamara wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >And, as I pointed out in the meeting, these guidelines are
    > > > not based on
    > > > >whether one works for, or does not work for any
    > company. > > > > > >Also these guidelines really have
    > nothing to do with the
    > > > bylaws of the
    > > > >IEEE-SA; instead they have to do with the laws of the
    > United States. > > > > > >The IEEE-SA formed these
    > guidelines (you could think of them
    > > > as Design
    > > > >Rules) for us so as to provide a framework where we can
    > operate as a
    > > > >standards group while remaining at all times in
    > compliance with the
    > > > >laws of the United States.
    > > > >
    > > > >-- On Mar 23 2004 at 10:48, Alec Stanculescu sent a
    > message: > > > > To: alec@f4.fintronic.com, btf@boyd.com,
    > vfv@eda.org > > > > Subject: "Apology!" > > > > Cliff, >
    > > > > > > > > After apologizing, you included the
    > offending statements for a
    > > > >second
    > > > > > round of distribution!
    > > > > >
    > > > > > And, just to keep the record straight, are you stating
    > > > that you never
    > > > > > received money from any company selling EDA tools?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Alec Stanculescu
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > Hi, All -
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > My bad! I don't work for an company that sells EDA
    > > > tools and I
    > > > > > > forgot the new bylaws that forbid mention of
    > companies and
    > > > > > > product plans. I will refrain from mentioning
    > companies in
    > > > > > > future discussions.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > I hope the issues I raised do not get lost in my
    > > > poor presentation
    > > > > of same.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Sorry, all!
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Regards - Cliff
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > At 06:49 AM 3/23/2004, Michael McNamara wrote:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >-- On Mar 18 2004 at 18:01, Clifford E. Cummings
    > > > sent a message:
    > > > > > > > > To: btf@boyd.com, vfv@eda.org
    > > > > > > > > Subject: "RE: PSL: Attributes for Verilog and
    > > > SystemVerilog"
    > > > > > > > > Hi, All -
    > > > > > > >...
    > > >
    > > > ----------------------------------------------------
    > > > Cliff Cummings - Sunburst Design, Inc.
    > > > 14314 SW Allen Blvd., PMB 501, Beaverton, OR 97005
    > > > Phone: 503-641-8446 / FAX: 503-641-8486
    > > > cliffc@sunburst-design.com / www.sunburst-design.com Expert
    > > > Verilog, SystemVerilog, Synthesis and Verification Training > >
    > > >
    > > >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 24 2004 - 11:48:50 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.