RE: DASC-SC: Call for vote on Revised P1364 PAR

From: Bailey, Stephen (SBailey@model.com)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 14:28:24 PDT

  • Next message: Shalom Bresticker: "on expertise"

    Alex,
     
    I believe you are mis-reading the DASC-SC P&Ps and have left out an important context that helps to indicate that the quoted section is being mis-interpreted. See below for additional information. If I am the one with a misunderstanding the DASC-SC P&P, please let me know where I am mistaken.
     
    You have also asserted that the DASC quorum was mis-counted at the DAC meeting (again). If there is an error in establishing quorum, please be specific. Who was counted as present for quorum that wasn't there or who wasn't counted for quorum that was there. Which additional meetings also had an error in counting attendance for quorum purposes.
     
    (In case it might be a factor, the DASC-SC P&P clearly allow for the SC to continue conducting business even if the SC attendance dips below the quorum threshold at any time during the meeting as long as quorum was initially established. Under such situations, any action taken by the SC (excluding adjournment) must be approved by at least a majority of the members required to constitute a quorum. That is, the minimum number of votes required for approval of any action can never be less than that required by quorum. See section 4.1 of the P&Ps.)
     
    Thanks.
     
    -Steve Bailey

      _____

    From: owner-stds-dasc-sc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc-sc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Alex Zamfirescu
    Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 9:45 PM
    To: stds-dasc-sc@eda.org; 1364@accellera.org
    Subject: Re: DASC-SC: Call for vote on Revised P1364 PAR

    Third, the DASC-SC approved procedures are clear about when
    a group can be disbanded.

    First, I think the mis-reading here is that "The DASC-SC shall disband a Working Group if ..."
    is specifying the only conditions/situations under which the SC can disband a working group.
     
    But, that is not what it says. It says the DASC-SC is obligated to disband a Working Group under the specified conditions. It doesn't say that these are the only conditions under which a subgroup (Working Groups are subgroups) can be disbanded.
     
    Note, the quoted section of the DASC-SC P&Ps is section 3.
     
    For further context, section 3 must be read in conjunction with section 2 which states:
     
    2 Responsibilities of the DASC-SC

    The DASC-SC shall be responsible for the following:

    1. Administering operation of the DASC according to the procedures of the DASC and these procedures

    2. Formation and disbandment of subgroups of the DASC

    3. ...

    4. ...

    5. ...

    Item 2 of section 2 clearly states that the DASC-SC is responsible for the formation and disbandment of subgroups. If the section 3 conditions were meant to be the only conditions under which the DASC-SC could exercise its responsibility for disbanding subgroups (specifically working groups), then those conditions would either be specified in section 2 and/or the wording, specifically the verb "shall", would be different. Something along the lines of:
     
    A Working Group may be disbanded by the DASC-SC only if ...
     
    -Steve Bailey
     

    ------------------quote from DASC SC Procedures

    The DASC-SC shall disband a Working Group if

    1. The Working Group is unable to complete preparation of all new standards assigned to it and the Working

    Group has no approved standards assigned to it and the Chair of the Working Group requests disbandment, or

    2. All approved standards assigned to the Working Group are withdrawn and all PARs for the Working Group

    have expired.

    -------------end quote from DASC SC Procedures

    Note there is no "3 Any other reasons as Chair, Vice Chair or others would prefer" reason and only those

    2 well conditioned cases are mentioned. Is the DASC-SC acting outside of its procedures?

    This is valid for the 1076.3 group as well.

    Kindest regards,

    Alex Zamfirescu

     

     
    Regards,
     
    Alex Zamfirescu
    CTO ASC
    IEC USNC TA
    Convener TC93/WG2

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Michael <mailto:mac@verisity.com> McNamara
    To: stds-dasc-sc@eda.org <mailto:stds-dasc-sc@eda.org> ; 1364@accellera.org <mailto:1364@accellera.org>
    Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:35 PM
    Subject: RE: DASC-SC: Call for vote on Revised P1364 PAR

    First: I do very much appreciate Stephen Bailey's efforts to educate
    us on proper email 'nettiquete'; and feel that we would not be in the
    place we are today if more people followed his advice.

    I also very much appreciate Stephen's outreach to the 1076.3 and 1364
    groups whos projects have been, or are proposed to be dismissed by the
    DASC.

        Thank you Stephen, you are a real gentleman.

    Second: I want to thank everyone on the DASC-SC for our time together.
    I will say that serving on this committee has never been boring, and I
    have learned things about human behavior that, shall we say, can not
    be expressed in any hardware description language. As this proposal
    to eliminate the 1364 working group appears certain to pass, and as a
    result, I will no longer be a member of the steering committee, I take
    this oppotunity to wish you all well, and thank you for our time together.

    Finally: I am for one Verilog, and it is clear from the offer that the
    1364 Working group debated, developed consensus, and presented to
    Accellera that the 1364 WG has the same desire. As you can read in
    Richard Goering's column, I have personally traveled to the mountain,
    and will work to make a single Verilog, whether it is in 1800 or 1364.

    Much has been made about the various votes in Accellera on transfering
    System Verilog to the IEEE. The record shows that every member of
    Accellera who did not abstain, voted to transfer the standard to the
    IEEE. Some voted to transfer it to the DASC. Others voted to
    transfer it to the IEEE-CAG. In the end, the format was transfered to
    a jointly sponsored PAR of the DASC and the IEEE-CAG, so everyone
    should be happy.

    Saddly, I have no choice but to cast a no on this proposed ammended
    PAR for 1364. I cast this no vote on behalf of the voices in the 1364
    working group whos opinion, thoughts and ideas were never asked for
    by this committee.

    Here are my comments of this negative vote:

    1) The revision of the PAR should occur with the input and consensus
    of the 1364 Working Group.

    2) The rush to meet a deadline is not justification to silence input
    from members of the DASC and the Working Group.

    3) The new PAR invalidates existing good on going work of the
    committee.

    4) Changing a group to entity status before we have defined the fees,
    responsibilities and identities of any DASC entity member is like
    jumping into a pool without checking for water.

    5) We have the time, and the obligation to do this correctly.
      => define entity status
      => solicit entity members
      => solicit entity PARs or revision PARs

    Detailed comments for those you care to read more on this topic:

    1) The existing 1364 PAR was developed by its working group, approved by
    the DASC-SC, and then approved by NESCOM. The Working Group proceeded
    to perform 18 months of work under this authorization.

    The proposed ammended PAR was developed by the DASC-SC, and is being
    presented for vote in the DASC-SC in preparation for submittal to
    NESCOM without seeking a vote of approval from the 1364 Working Group.
    Our duty to solicit input from all parties, and to seek consensus of
    all parties would require that we seek input from the WG, and work to
    obtain their approval.

    The DASC has a clear track record of conducting its business in such
    an open manner:

    A) In the 1076 working group, members are debating the contents of the
    PAR, and are weighing the relative benefits of entity based versus
    individual membership, and are conducting a letter ballot on this
    topic as I type this.

    B) The DASC rejected the efforts of its recently formed System C Study
    group, which did not take the requiste efforts to call for
    participation, seek input from interested parties, build consensus,
    and then and then form a PAR; but instead the SG chair simply prepared
    a PAR without other input and submitted it to the DASC for approval.
    The DASC, quite rightly did not accept this result, and formed the
    Study Group, directing its chair more clearly as to the necessary
    steps to form a PAR.

    Such openness and consensus building must be undertaken with the 1364
    working group as well.

    2) It was been put forth that time is short, and that we must put
    aside the normal order of things so as to put together a revised PAR
    in order to make the next NESCOM deadline.

    Investing in the additional few weeks to build consensus, and to
    listen and respond to the points that are made will be very much worth
    the effort. In truth, the real deadline is how long it takes to win
    the hearts and minds of the people who have worked on Verilog for this
    past decade. Once they are engaged, it doesn't matter whether a
    revised PAR is approved or still in the process. If instead we rush
    to change the PAR, and we lose many of these individuals who have
    worked so hard on these projects over the years, we will be much, much
    weaker for many years. We have seen some who have weighed in with
    their unsolicited opinions of this series of events. The right course
    of action is to solicit input from all of these people, listen to the
    input, and respond in areas that will strengthen the overall effort,
    and then take the consensus route.

    3) Many of the proposals that have been passed by the Working Group in
    the last 18 months, and many that have been debated advance the state
    of the language in areas that are not authorized under this proposed
    new PAR. Someone will have to undo this work. Significant parts of
    System Verilog depend on these enhancements, and yet the P1800 PAR
    does not authorize inclusion of work from any source other than
    SystemVerilog 3.1a

    4) We really must finish the definition of entity status in the DASC
    before forming committees which can be populated only by such members.

             _
            // Michael McNamara, Sr VP Technology <mac@verisity.com>
      _ // 650-934-6888, 408-348-7025 Cell <http://www.verisity.com>
      \\ // ___ ____ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ ___ ___ __ _ _ _ _
       \\// |_ |___)|(___ |' | ` \ / | \ |_ (__ | / _ |\ |
        \/ |__ | \ | ___)| | | |__/ |__ __)| \_/ | \|

    -- On Jun 28 2004 at 15:40, Peter Ashenden sent a message:
    > To: stds-dasc-sc@eda.org
    > Subject: "DASC-SC: Call for vote on Revised P1364 PAR"
    > Dear colleagues,
    >
    > Attached is a revised revised PAR addressing some of the issues raised. It
    > has been suggested that we not specifically call out IP encryption in the
    > PAR for 1364, as it is within scope for P1800 and can be addressed as part
    > of that project. I have included Victor's suggested text re ensuring
    > compatibility with SV, and followed the suggestion to remove "system level"
    > from the scope. I have also amended the expected completion date to align
    > with that of P1800, and corrected the sponsor to C/DA (us).
    >
    > I am advised that the next deadline for injecting a PAR submission into
    > NesCom's continuous processing schedule is 6 July. In the interests of
    > meeting that deadline, I call for a vote on approval of the attached PAR.
    > Please forward your vote, one of Affirmative, Negative, Negative with
    > comments or Abstain, to me by email as soon as possible. The ballot period
    > is 14 days, but I would hope to receive 100% return before the 6 July
    > deadline.
    >
    > Voting DASC-SC members are:
    >
    > Peter Ashenden
    > Victor Berman
    > Stephen Bailey
    > Oz Levia
    > Tom Kazmierski
    > Alan Mantooth
    > J. Bhasker
    > Michael McNamara
    > John Beatty
    > Wolfgang Roethig
    > Yaron Kashai
    > John Willis
    >
    > Thanks, and regards,
    >
    > Peter Ashenden
    > DASC Chair
    >
    > --
    > Dr. Peter J. Ashenden peter@ashenden.com.au
    > Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd. www.ashenden.com.au
    > PO Box 640 Ph: +61 8 8339 7532
    > Stirling, SA 5152 Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
    > Australia Mobile: +61 414 70 9106

      _____

    IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD

    PROJECT AUTHORIZATION REQUEST (PAR) FORM - 2004

    The submittal deadlines for the Year 2004 <http://standards.ieee.org/board/stdsbd/2004calendar.pdf> are available.

    Prior to submitting your PAR, please review the NesCom Conventions <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/nesconv.html> .

    1. <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#pnumber> ASSIGNED PROJECT NUMBER P (Please leave blank if not available.)

    2. SPONSOR DATE OF REQUEST <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#spdate> Day: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31Month: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12Year: 2004

    3. TYPE OF DOCUMENT <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#type> (Please check one.)
    Standard for {document stressing the verb "shall"}
    Recommended Practice for {document stressing the verb "should"}
    Guide for {document in which good practices are suggested, stressing the verb "may"}

      _____

    4. TITLE OF DOCUMENT <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#projtitle>

    Draft

    Verilog Hardware Description Language

      _____

    5. LIFE CYCLE
    Full-Use <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#full>
    Trial-Use <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#trial>

      _____

    6. TYPE OF PROJECT <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#project>

    New document

     

    Revision of an existing document (indicate number and year existing document was published in box to the right):

    (####-YYYY)

    Amendment to an existing document (indicate number and year existing document was published in box to the right):

    Corrigendum to an existing document (indicate number and year existing document was published in box to the right):

    Modified PAR (indicate PAR Number and Approval Date here: P Day 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31Month 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12Year 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990)

     Is this project in ballot now? Yes No
     State reason for modifying the PAR in Item #19 <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/ePARform.html#number19> .

      _____

    7. WORKING GROUP INFORMATION:
     <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#namewg> Name of Working Group:
     <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#nowg> Approximate Number of Expected Working Group Members:

      _____

    8. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR WORKING GROUP CHAIR <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#wgc> (must be an IEEE-SA member as well as an IEEE and/or Affiliate Member)
     Name of Working Group Chair: First Name: Last Name:
     Telephone: FAX: E-mail:

      _____

    9. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR CO-CHAIR/OFFICIAL REPORTER <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#official> , Project Editor or Document Custodian if different from the Working Group Chair (must be an IEEE-SA member as well as an IEEE and/or Affiliate Member)
     Name of Co-Chair/Official Reporter (if different than Working Group Chair): First Name: Last Name:
     Telephone: FAX: E-mail:

      _____

    10. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR SPONSORING SOCIETY OR STANDARDS COORDINATING COMMITTEE <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#sponsoring>

    Sponsoring Society and Committee: AES AES/GA AES/RS AP AP/A AP/P BT BT/AV TECH BT/RF TECH CAG CAG CAS COM COM/TA&OS CPMT C C/DA C/LM C/LTSC C/MM C/PA C/SAB C/SCC C/SE C/SISC C/SS C/TT C/VI CE CPMT CS DEI DEI/VE E ED EM EMB EMB/1073 EMC EMC/SDCom GRS IA IA/CI IA/EM IA/ES IA/I&CPS IA/IA&C IA/IPC IA/MI IA/PCI IA/PSE IA/PSP IE IM IM/AI IM/Con IM/ST IM/WM&A IT LEO MAG MTT NNC NPS NPS/NI&D OE PE PE/ED&PG PE/EM PE/IC PE/NPE PE/PSC PE/PSIM PE/PSR PE/SB PE/SCC PE/SPD/HV PE/SPD/LV PE/SUB PE/SWG PE/T&D PE/TC PE/TR PEL PEL/ET R RA SMC SP UFFC VT VT/RT SCC04 SCC10 SCC14 SCC20 SCC21 SCC22 SCC27 SCC28 SCC31 SCC32 SCC34 SCC37 SCC38(Please choose the correct acronym for your Sponsor Society/Technical Committee or SCC. For an acronym list, please click here. <http://standards.ieee.org/bearer/abb/index.html> )

    Sponsor Committee Chair: First Name: Last Name:

    Telephone:

    FAX:

    E-mail:

     

     

     

    Standards Coordinator (Power Engineering Society Only):

     

    Standards Coordinator: First Name: Last Name:

    Telephone:

    FAX:

    E-mail:

    IF THIS PROJECT IS BEING SPONSORED BY TWO SPONSORS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW

    Sponsoring Society and Committee: AES AES/GA AES/RS AP AP/A AP/P BT BT/AV TECH BT/RF TECH CAS COM COM/TA&OS CPMT C C/DA C/LM C/LTSC C/MM C/PA C/SAB C/SCC C/SE C/SISC C/SS C/TT C/VI CE CPMT CS DEI DEI/VE E ED EM EMB EMB/1073 EMC EMC/SDCom GRS IA IA/CI IA/EM IA/ES IA/I&CPS IA/IA&C IA/IPC IA/MI IA/PCI IA/PSE IA/PSP IE IM IM/AI IM/Con IM/ST IM/WM&A IT LEO MAG MTT NNC NPS NPS/NI&D OE PE PE/ED&PG PE/EM PE/IC PE/NPE PE/PSC PE/PSIM PE/PSR PE/SB PE/SCC PE/SPD/HV PE/SPD/LV PE/SUB PE/SWG PE/T&D PE/TC PE/TR PEL PEL/ET R RA SMC SP UFFC VT VT/RT SCC04 SCC10 SCC14 SCC20 SCC21 SCC22 SCC27 SCC28 SCC31 SCC32 SCC34 SCC37 SCC38( <http://standards.ieee.org/bearer/abb/index.html> Please choose the correct acronym for your Sponsor Society/Technical Committee or SCC. For an acronym list, please click here. <http://standards.ieee.org/bearer/abb/index.html> )

    Sponsor Committee Chair: First Name: Last Name:

    Telephone:

    FAX:

    E-mail:

     

     

     

    Standards Coordinator (Power Engineering Society Only):

     

    Standards Coordinator: First Name: Last Name:

    Telephone:

    FAX:

    E-mail:

      _____

    11. SPONSOR BALLOTING INFORMATION <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#balloting> (Please choose one of the following):
    Individual Balloting
    Entity Balloting
    Mixed Balloting (combination of Individual and Entity Balloting)
     Expected Date of Submission for Initial Sponsor Ballot: Day: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31Month: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12Year: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

    Please review the PAR form three months prior to submitting your draft for ballot to ensure that the title, scope, and purpose on the PAR form match the title, scope, and purpose on the draft. If they do not match, you will probably need to submit a modified PAR.

    Additional communication and input from other organizations or other IEEE Standards Sponsors should be encouraged through participation in the working group or the invitation pool.

      _____

    12. PROJECTED COMPLETION DATE FOR SUBMITTAL TO REVCOM <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#subdate> Day: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31Month: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12Year: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

    If this is a MODIFIED PAR and the completion date is being extended past the original four-year life of the PAR, please answer the following questions. If this is not a modified PAR, please go to Question <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/ePARform.html#number13> #13.

    a. Statement of why the extension is required:

    b. When did work on the first draft begin?

    Day: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31Month: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12Year: 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990

    c. How many people are actively working on the project?

    d. How many times a year does the working group meet in person?

    e. How many times a year does the working group meet using electronic means (i.e., teleconference, e-mail, web-based meetings)?

    f. How frequently is a draft version circulated to the working group?

    g. How much of the Draft is stable (Format: NN%)?

    %

    h. How many significant working revisions has the Draft been through?

    i. Briefly describe what the development group has already accomplished, and what remains to be done.

      _____

    13. number13SCOPE OF PROPOSED PROJECT <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#projscope>
     Please detail the projected output including technical boundaries. Please be brief (less than 5 lines).

     FOR REVISED DOCUMENTS ONLY - Please detail the projected output including the scope of the original document, amendments, and additions.
    Verilog is a Hardware Description Language which was standardized as IEEE-1364-1995, and revised as 1364-2001. It is currently used by integrated circuit designers to specify their designs at the switch, gate and RTL levels. The proposed project will revise Verilog 1364 to correct and clarify features ambiguously or erroneously described in the 1364-1995 and 1364-2001 revisions and to resolve incompatibilities and inconsistencies with the proposed enhancements in P1800.

     Is the completion of this document contingent upon the completion of another document?
    Yes (with detailed explanation below) No

      _____

    14. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PROJECT <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#purpose>
      Please clearly and concisely define "why" the document is being done. Please be brief (less than 5 lines).

      FOR REVISED DOCUMENTS ONLY - Please include the purpose of the original document and the reason for the document's revision.
    The purpose of this project is to provide a standard that complements IEEE 1076-IEEE Standard VHDL Language Reference Manual from the register transfer level downward, by providing an industry standard based on the Verilog Hardware Description Language, as well as incorporating corrections that have been identified by the working group since the 1364-1995 and 1364-2001 were published by the IEEE.
     14a. Please give the specific reason for the standardization project, with particular emphasis on the problem being solved, the benefit to be received and target users or industries.

      _____

    15. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (Please answer each of the questions below)

     Has the Sponsor reviewed the IEEE-SA patent material <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html> with the working group? Yes No

     Is the Sponsor aware of copyright <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#copyrights> permissions needed for this project? Yes No
     If yes, please explain:

      Is the Sponsor aware of trademarks <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#trademarks> that apply to this project? Yes No
      If yes, please explain:

      Is the Sponsor aware of possible registration of objects <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#objects> or numbers to be included in or used by this project? Yes No
      If yes, please explain:

      _____

    16. ARE THERE OTHER DOCUMENTS OR PROJECTS WITH A SIMILAR SCOPE <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#simscope> ?
    Yes (with detailed explanation below) No
    IEEE 1076-IEEE Standard VHDL Language Reference Manual
     If Yes, please answer the following:
      Sponsor Organization:
      Project Number:
      Project Date: Day: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31Month: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12Year: 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990
      Project Title:

      _____

    17. FUTURE ADOPTIONS <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#intlsub>

     Is there potential for this document (in part or in whole) to be adopted by another national, regional or international organization? Yes No Do not know at this time

     

    If Yes, the following questions must be answered:
    Technical Committee Name and Number: IEC ISO ISO/IEC JTC1 ITUTC SC WG
    Other Organization Contact Information:
    Contact Name: First Name: Last Name:
    Contact Telephone Number:
    Contact FAX Number:
    Contact E-mail address:

      _____

    18. IF THE PROJECT WILL RESULT IN ANY HEALTH, SAFETY, OR ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDANCE <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#safety> THAT AFFECTS OR APPLIES TO HUMAN HEALTH OR SAFETY, PLEASE EXPLAIN IN FIVE SENTENCES OR LESS.

      _____

    19number19.ADDITIONAL EXPLANATORY NOTES <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html#notes> (Item Number and Explanation)
    DASC-SC resolved to request modification of the PAR so that Verilog and SystemVerilog (P1800) can be administered together, leverage each language strength and eventually be unified by one working group

    I acknowledge having read and understood the IEEE Code of Ethics <http://www.ieee.org/portal/index.jsp?pageID=corp_level1&path=about/whatis&file=code.xml&xsl=generic.xsl> . I agree to conduct myself in a manner that adheres to the IEEE Code of Ethics when engaged in official IEEE business.

    The PAR Copyright Release and Signature Page <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parsig.rtf> must be submitted by FAX to +1 732-875-0695 to the NesCom Administrator <http://standards.ieee.org/people/index.html#haasz> before this PAR will be forwarded to NesCom and the Standards Board for approval.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 02 2004 - 16:07:41 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.