[$ieee-1850] Proposal for an Annual Membership Fee to fund IEEE services

The following is a proposal for an Annual Membership Fee for IEEE 1850 PSL Working Group Members, to provide funds for IEEE services to expedite continuing development of the IEEE 1850 PSL standard.

Due to the time-critical nature of this decision (since we are looking to put a contract in place in January), and given the constraints on voting process in our P&Ps, we may want to vote on this proposal at the next WG meeting, on Tuesday December 21, rather than by email (which would require at least 14 days, and the Chair's decision to pursue an email ballot). Notification that this issue may be voted upon at the next meeting will be included in the agenda for the meeting. If the Chair prefers to pursue an email ballot, we can begin that ballot immediately after the next meeting. Either way, a quorum (>50% of members) must be present for the vote. Establishment of fees of this sort requires a 2/3 positive vote of the membership at the time of the ballot, excluding abstentions.

Because this issue will also affect future members of the working group, it is our intent to allow both members and observers to cast a ballot on this issue. However, according to the P&Ps, only current members' votes are significant. Nonetheless, non-member votes will be considered as an indication of whether this proposal will be acceptable to future members.

Please review this proposal and point out any issues via email to the reflector.

Regards,

Erich Marschner
Secretary, IEEE 1850 PSL WG

===================================================================

Proposed Annual Membership Fee for IEEE 1850 Working Group Members

In addition to the membership requirements specified in the IEEE 1850 Working Group's Policies and Procedures, we propose to add an Annual Membership Fee, payable at the start of each calendar year, beginning with calendar year 2005. The Membership Fee will include several levels corresponding to member revenue levels, following the same percentages and revenue breakpoints as used in the IEEE 1800 SystemVerilog working group.

There are three options to consider:

Option 1:
=======
This fee structure is what was discussed in the working group meeting on December 14. The fee levels in this case will be just enough to cover the current proposed IEEE funded services for the initial release of the IEEE 1850 PSL standard.

Revenue % $ Members assumed in each category
====================================================================
>$1B 100% $3.5K Cadence, IBM, Infineon, Nokia, Synopsys
>$100M 60% $2.1K Mentor
>$10M 20% $0.7K SafeLogic
<$10M 0% $0.0

If the assumptions about member participation are correct, this option would generate $20.3K in each calendar year.

Option 2:
=======
This fee structure has been increased as suggested in the working group meeting, while keeping the ratios and revenue breakpoints the same. This would allow us to build up a small surplus in the first year, to handle unexpected costs in 2005 or to roll over into support services for the next version.

Revenue % $ Members assumed in each category
====================================================================
>$1B 100% $4.0K Cadence, IBM, Infineon, Nokia, Synopsys
>$100M 60% $2.4K Mentor
>$10M 20% $0.8K SafeLogic
<$10M 0% $0.0

If the assumptions about member participation are correct, this option would generate $23.2K in each calendar year.

Option 3:
=======
This fee structure is the same as the IEEE 1800 SystemVerilog working group's fee structure. Again, the ratios and revenue breakpoints remain the same. This would allow us to build up a bigger surplus in the each year, to handle unexpected costs or to roll over into support services for the subsequent versions.

Revenue % $ Members assumed in each category
====================================================================
>$1B 100% $5.0K Cadence, IBM, Infineon, Nokia, Synopsys
>$100M 60% $3.0K Mentor
>$10M 20% $1.0K SafeLogic
<$10M 0% $0.0

If the assumptions about member participation are correct, this option would generate $29K in each calendar year.

Each option should be considered separately - i.e., it should be possible to vote yes (or no) for all three options, or to vote yes for one/some and no for the other(s).
Received on Tue Dec 14 15:08:23 2004