Subject: Re: I would like to see this (and future) votes held according tothe rules.
From: Yatin Trivedi (trivedi@pacbell.net)
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 21:37:24 PDT
Hi all,
Given the stir I have caused, may be I should clarify a couple
of points and ask clarification of a few more:
* The original email to SV-CC with Voting Guidelines was sent after
consultation with Vassilios as TCC Chair. I take my procedural
directions and clarifications from him.
* In order to seek commonality, I asked David Smith, SV-EC chair, for
the procedure his committee was following. I took some of the items in
my mail directly from what Dave has published on SV-EC web page after
he pointed it out.
* A "one time exception" was suggested to increase the possibility of
counting more opinions in this decision. If I limit the vote in
strict adherence to Accellera guidelines, only 4 participants qualify
(Cadence, Motorola, Novas, Synopsys). My co-chair and I did not think
it was appropriate to make such a decision based on a constituency of
four - too small a sample out of 18 participants (some irregular).
I do understand that Accellera has its rules and policies. I appreciate
the information provided to me so far. However, it now raises questions
for me (and the committee) as to how we shall vote:
- Shall we limit the vote to only 4 members?
- Shall we delay the vote until more members join and become
eligible to vote?
- What is the minimum voting requirement
(i.e. how many min votes must be cast for the vote to be valid?)
- What would be Quorum requirements for conducting committee work?
- Is there a distinction between procedural votes and committee's
technical matters vote? (i.e. voting on acceptance of a donation,
approval of the LRM, etc. vs semantics of a specific item in third
bullet of fifth paragraph or section 9.2?)
Regards
Yatin
Michael McNamara wrote:
>
> To clear up possible confusion, I am very happy with whatever rules
> Accellera's board approves. In particular, I would be very happy if
> the Accellera Board approves rules that allow IEEE members a vote.
>
> However, Accellera has not done this yet. The current rules, as the
> Accellera Chair cites, are very specific about voting. We must either
> follow them, or change them. Ignoring them is not a viable option.
>
> I was part of a board sub-committee that put forth a proposal that
> included changing the voting rules to the Accellera Board; this
> proposal was not heard due to procedural issues. I do hope the
> proposal does get heard, or that some other motion is made by another
> party which brings this matter to the Board immediately, the Board
> votes, and we have rules that are clear to all, and we then run our
> technical committees this way.
>
> Dennis Brophy writes:
> > Yatin,
> >
> > I don't want to add fuel to an issue on voting in Accellera
> > technical groups, but as pointed out in the attached email, there
> > are several features outlined in the organization's bylaws that
> > Accellera need to familiarize you and all the Technical
> > Subcommittees. Those include (1) classes of membership, (2) voting
> > privileges and (3) objection procedures.
> >
> > The Board had directed the creation of a special committee to
> > ensure the rules of Accellera are part of each committee's work
> > guidelines. This work is still not complete unfortunately
> > otherwise you would have gotten that information instead of this
> > email.
> >
> > In general, the Technical Committee and Subcommittees are given
> > freedom to organize as they see best fit to accomplish their goals.
> > There are a few constraints placed on them by the organization. I
> > would like to familiarize you with these constraints.
> >
> > (1) Accellera has three classes of membership: Corporate, Associate
> > Corporate and Individual. You can find a list of Corporate and
> > Associate Corporate members at http://www.accellera.org/member.html.
> > If you would like more information on membership in Accellera,
> > you can contact the organization's administrator, Lynn Horobin, at
> > lynn@accellera.org. Lynn will offer 50% reduction in membership
> > fees to any person or entity that wishes to join the organization
> > as a Corporate or Associate Corporate member from now until the
> > beginning of the new membership year in 2003.
> >
> > (2) Only Corporate and Associate Corporate members may cast votes
> > when a vote of a Technical Subcommittee is called. And, when
> > these votes are cast, only one vote per company is allowed.
> > When a Technical Subcommittee votes to approve a standard,
> > specification or guideline, two-thirds of the Technical Subcommittee
> > eligible to vote is required.
> >
> > Industry consensus is important and participation by technical
> > experts is encouraged. Individual member participation is
> > guaranteed. Individual members may be members of a Technical
> > Subcommittee and may actively participate in Technical Subcommittee
> > business activities, but are not eligible to vote on such issues
> > as may be brought forward for a decision by the Technical
> > Subcommittee.
> > Voting privileges may be extended to Individual members by a vote
> > of the Board. It is the responsibility of the Technical Committee
> > Chair to place such items for approval on the Board's agenda.
> > I suggest you work with Vassilios if you have such individual
> > participants in your team.
> >
> > (3) By written petition of 25% of the Corporate Members, any matter
> > voted by a Technical Subcommittee or Technical Committee may be
> > brought to the Technical Committee or Board for approval or
> > disapproval. Just to ensure everyone knows there is a path to
> > challenge any vote, I thought it best to share the petition
> > mechanism with you.
> >
> > During the formation of Accellera, we knew it was important to maintain the
> > financial health of the organization to underwrite and fund the creation the
> > specifications of the technical teams. To encourage membership, voting in
> > the technical committees was determined to be the best motivating factor.
> > For the systems and semiconductor companies, you expect EDA companies to be
> > members of Accellera. And many EDA companies are. EDA companies recognize
> > that systems and semiconductor companies are challenged to participate in an
> > even broader set of industry coalition, standards groups and initiatives.
> > We know you cannot participate in all of them, but we trust your assessment
> > of the leverage that the work of Accellera gives your teams. For those of
> > you working in the
> >
> > In special regards to the IEEE 1364 participants, I personally
> > thought this was a joint effort. As such, one would assume the
> > natural outcome would be to share in the approval process.
> > Accellera's Board may well need to recognize this officially and I
> > will discuss this more with the organization. Since the email
> > below is from the chair of the IEEE 1364, in addition to his other
> > affiliations, I suspect a judgment that a state of official
> > collaboration exists is not fully solidified. We will work towards
> > the organization's explicit position on that status.
> >
> > I understand any email on this topic can be quite contentious, and
> > if anyone wishes to speak to me regarding it, don't hesitate to
> > contact me.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael McNamara [mailto:mac@verisity.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 3:02 PM
> > To: Dennis Brophy
> > Subject: I would like to see this (and future) votes held according to
> > the rules.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ref:
> >
> > Yatin Trivedi writes:
> > > Hi all,
> > > As chair and co-chair of SV-CC we would like to explain what
> > > it means to vote on and accept the donation.
> > >
> > > When Accellera set out to enhance Verilog, and later System Verilog,
> > > the board and TCC invited technical donations from Accellera members
> > > (and industry at large). These donations were technical proposals in
> > > the form of documents that described either actual implementation or
> > > work in progress as it would relate to Verilog or System Verilog.
> > >
> > > The acceptance of donation implies that there is enough knowledge by
> > > committee members to take the donation and use it as a basis for the
> > > work of the committee. This is intended as a jump start to establish
> > > the direction of the effort for the committee. The acceptance of the
> > > donation would allow the committee to evaluate each item in the
> > > document for further analysis in the context of the requirements.
> > > The committee can debate and agree to change, add, or delete certain
> > > items in the document to suit the requirements.
> > >
> > >
> > > The voting policy, as established by Accellera board, is modified a
> > > little to allow larger participation in the voting process. Here
> > > are the rules:
> > >
> > > * Only Accellera member companies may vote. An exception is provided
> > > for those individuals/companies who were part of System Verilog 3.0
> > > effort and had voting rights. This exception is still subject to
> > > meeting other requirements.
> > >
> > > * Vote on technical issues will be a simple majority of all
> > > attendees (not limited to one per company)
> > >
> > > * All procedural and final (accept donation, LRM) approvals (other
> > > items at the chair's discretion) will follow the one vote per
> > > company rule. Each company has a designate (with proxy support).
> > > IEEE members, who are not an Accellera member or commercial
> > > affiliation will have an indivdual vote as well.
> > >
> > > * Accellera guideline is to allow anyone (subject to membership
> > > requirement) with 75% attendance in all meetings or 3 out of
> > > last 4 meetings to vote. For the purpose of this particular vote,
> > > TCC chair has agreed that we can allow larger voting particiaption
> > > by anyone (subject to membership requirement) who has attended
> > > 50% of all meetings or 2 of the last 4 meetings.
> > >
> > > Note: We will send a note directly to those who are eligible to vote.
> > >
> > > If you have questions or comments, please send an email directly
> > > to Ghassan and Yatin. Let's not discuss the voting policy on the
> > > reflector for the sake of keeping it focused on technical topics.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Yatin
> > >
> >
> > Dennis: As you pointed out to us very clearly in both an officers
> > meeting, and during the recent Accellera Board Meeting, there is no
> > basis for a vote in any technical committee, board meeting, or other
> > activity of Accellera other than a single vote by the designated
> > representative of each corporate member. IEEE members do not get a
> > vote. Multiple individuals of member companies do not get a vote.
> >
> > This proposal from Yatin enfranchises folks that should not be given a
> > vote.
> >
> > As board members of Accellera, we must either:
> >
> > 1) Inform Yatin and Vassilious that they must conduct this and all
> > votes according to the rules stated in Resolution 17; (hence only
> > corporate members may vote) or
> >
> > 2) Make a special proposal at the board level to allow this vote to be
> > conducted as Yatin outlines; or
> >
> > 3) Amend resolution 17 to enfranchise IEEE members as Yatin proposes;
> > and allow individual mmbers of technical committees to vote on small
> > issues.
> >
> > For the past two years the technical committees have been acting out
> > of order with the bylaws of Accellera; however only a few board
> > members were aware of this fact.
> >
> > If the Accellera Board allows this and subsequent votes to be
> > conducted in direct violation of Resolution 17, it will unnecessarily
> > continue the very, very bad state the technical committees are
> > operating, with the entire Board very much aware that the technical
> > committees are violating the bylaws of Accellera.
> >
> > Two issues that cry out for attention: the one person one vote is
> > directly outlawed by Resolution 17. The enfranchisement of IEEE
> > members is directly ruled out by Resolution 17.
> >
> > Please make it right.
> >
> > -mac
> > [2 <text/html; iso-8859-1 (quoted-printable)>]
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 21:27:09 PDT