Subject: [sv-bc] RE: Statements to the Press
From: Michael McNamara (mac@verisity.com)
Date: Fri Sep 05 2003 - 15:51:51 PDT
-- On Sep 4 2003 at 07:42, Brophy, Dennis sent a message:
> To: mac@verisity.com, 1364@accellera.org, btf@boyd.com, etf@boyd.org
> Subject: "RE: Statements to the Press (fwd)"
> Mac,
>
> In light of your public comments regarding the donation period
> ending on 25 August 2003 for 1364-2005 and the email from Cliff
> yesterday to authenticate this date as being a VSG position, I
> think you need to explain to the VSG your recent comments to the
> press. (See: http://www.eedesign.com/story/OEG20030904S0017) Your
> statement of fact was a half truth as you will note from the
> message that both I and Shalom sent to Cliff on what the approved
> VSG position is.
I described to the IEEE the entire process, the motion which passed,
and the desire of the group to set an early donation deadline so that
we could get donations up front, and have time to adequately work on
incorporating the intellectual property into the standard. The use of
road maps and deadlines to facilitate efficient and timely development
are a standard part of effective program management which the IEEE as
well as courses on project management teach. (See
http://standards.ieee.org/guides/companion/part1.html#wkg and
http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/ProjectMgmt.ppt )
In the interest of space, the IEEE in developing the press release
summarized the road map into the form of their press release; while
also linking to the actual web resources where all the detail is
described.
I also explained to Richard Goering of the EETimes when he called me
the entire road map. Specifically I described the desire of the group
to get donations up front and its setting of an open period at the
beginning, with a later period where donations would have no guarantee
of consideration for inclusion in this revision; but that the working
group would use its collective judgment to decide on incorporation of
the material, et cetera.
As you point out, Richard chose to only quote a small fraction of my
statements of fact. As the author of his article, that is his
prerogative. He too has space constraints.
As you well know, it would be irresponsible to the IEEE PAR process
for the IEEE working group to indefinitely hold up work on the 1364
project awaiting a donation that you as Chair of Accellera have stated
publicly a number of times for which there has been no date set. The
working group asked for donations in June of 2002; we were told to
wait. We waited a year, and asked again for donations in June of
2003; and gave potential donors two months to consider their position
and do what they felt was right for them. The minutes of the August
25th BTF meeting show that this question was asked of you again,
without any conclusion of a timetime our willingness. This open
period for donations is well documented. Numerous donations were made
during the open period by a number of entities. Accellera chose not to
make a donation.
> The lack of an approved VSG deadline and a VSG approved user
> information collection process to consider further donations
> afterwards runs counter the position you assert. In fact, when you
> floated the idea of a press announcement at the last VSG meeting I
> don't think it met with approval and you suspended discussion. Now
> the question is, did I miss a meeting where that discussion
> resumed? If not, then I don't think you had reached a consensus
> position from which to speak.
As you know, I am required by the IEEE to publicize the activities of
the working group. I worked with the IEEE managing director and
public relations staff to fulfill this part of my job as chair of this
working group, resulting in this press release. IEEE Working Group
meetings are open to all; and groups can not decide to hold closed
sessions, or choose not to reveal significant facts like donations of
intelectual property. A vote on such a matter would be out of order.
Again as is well documented in the IEEE Standards Policy Guidelines,
as chair I am also specifically responsible for setting schedules and
organizing work in a manner that results in forward progress (see the
above referenced web pages and power-point presentations from the
IEEE).
> Since your comments fall short of what the VSG has authorized and
> may well not represent consensus, I suggest you to re-read your own
> words on VSG public statements:
>
> "When the IEEE 1364 Working Group indeed expresses
> an opinion to the Press, it will be an opinion that
> is formulated using the consensus process that we
> are required to use for everything else we do."
>
>
> If you want others to live by those words, you should as well.
All of my statements were of fact.
> On a side note, the referenced site for 1364-2005 in the EE-Times
> article is a Verisity site. The "privacy notice" there that states
> Verisity *will* collect information from visits to that site and
> the link to the Verisity home page is outrageous in the extreme.
> Has the 1364-2005 website become the information and data
> collection site for Verisity? My suggestion is to move to an
> independent site immediately.
Please check the web site now.
BTW, Verilog.com is owned by me and has been owned by me since 1995,
when I founded Verilog Consulting Services along with John Sanguinetti
and others. From time to time I have allowed organizations with whom I
am associated the use of this web site, such as links to books, to
product description pages, and company web sites. At the time the
Children's Online Privacy Protection act of 1998 went into effect, in
compliance with that act, I included privacy language, lifting it from
the Verisity web site. I failed to correct the attribution from
Verisity to Verilog.com. Thanks to your discovering this problem I
have fixed it on the Verilog.com site. The IEEE Verilog site now also
has its own privacy policy elucidated where the personal information
is gathered, and the privacy policy there stated is necessarily
subservient to the IEEE policy and includes links to their policy.
Despite the ownership of the site, the content would be the same. I
choose to donate use of a subsection of this site to the use of the
IEEE 1364 committee, due to a lack of funds to use other resources, as
well as the significant traffic that already visits that site to obtain
other Verilog resources, and in order to fulfill the mandate on me as
chair to effectively communicate activities of the group.
As you recall, the working group has been asking for donations to fund
web development by Stefen Boyd, and to date have received nothing.
Accellera budgeted $5,000 for the IEEE 1364 working group, and then
reallocated this money to other areas. I still very much hope that in
the upcoming budgeting cycle of Accellera we can work together to fund
this effort.
The working group must have a method to communicate with the world.
Today we are doing this with the gracious, uncompensated contribution
of time and web space by two members of the Working Group (Stefen Boyd
and myself).
This issue of ownership of the domain name is a red herring, and
should not distract anyone from the fact that the ownership of the
Verilog language is not in dispute; unequivocally it is owned by the
IEEE.
I continue to work towards a single Verilog. Verilog has been owned
by the IEEE since 1993. The IEEE is where work on this standard must
happen. I continue to hope, work and pray that all members of
Accellera will join with the IEEE to make a single Verilog standard.
I am encouraged by the words of Karen Bartleson, who says:
> Synopsys and many other EDA companies are supportive of both
> organizations and the processes that they have defined for
> producing standards. We will work to ensure smooth operations
> within and between IEEE and Accellera.
I very much hope this means that Synopsys will join the one Verilog
effort.
You quote my words from last April, where again, it is clear to all
that I have been, and continue to be working towards a single Verilog
language. You have my commitment that if Accellera decides today,
next week, next month to abandon its efforts which seemingly are
leading to creation of a divergence, and instead join forces with the
IEEE on integrating the incredible contributions of intellectual
property obtained by the IEEE and by Accellera into a single language,
I will use all my influence to get the world to rally around this. As
you know I have been advocating for a partnership between Accellera
and the IEEE for years.
The IEEE PAR demands forward progress, and can wait no longer than a
few months. Come join us is in making one Verilog.
Michael McNamara, speaking as:
Accellera Board Member
IEEE 1364 Chair
15 year user of the Verilog language.
10 year supplier of tools that work with Verilog
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis
> VSG Member
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
> [mailto:Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 1:47 PM
> To: 1364@accellera.org
> Subject: Statements to the Press (fwd)
>
>
> Resend.
>
> --
> 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
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 23:10:46 -0700
> From: Michael McNamara <mac@verisity.com>
> To: 1364@eda.org, etf@boyd.com, ptf@boyd.com, btf@boyd.com
> Cc: accellera_bod@accellera.org, sv-cc@eda.org, sv-bc@eda.org, sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: Statements to the Press
>
> Precedence: bulk
>
>
> We are living in exciting & scary times. These are also fragile
> times. In our little corner of the world a controversial area is
> the interaction of System Verilog and IEEE 1364. Ideally we can all
> come together and rally around a single Verilog Language. Perhaps
> we cannot. I personally am working towards the former.
>
> Currently statements made to the Press by individuals may be quoted
> as if stating the position of Accellera, of the IEEE, of the IEEE
> 1364 Working Group, or of the individual's company.
>
> Of course most of us play on multiple teams, I.E., have an employer,
> serve on (numerous) Accellera committees and on the IEEE 1364 Working
> Group and one or more of its Task Forces; so the score card is very
> hard for the press to follow.
>
> When the IEEE 1364 Working Group indeed expresses an opinion to the
> Press, it will be an opinion that is formulated using the consensus
> process that we are required to use for everything else we do.
>
> What I would like to ask members of the IEEE 1364 Working Group is
> the following: When expressing an opinion, please state that you are
> not speaking for the IEEE 1364 Working group, but in the opinion of
> (yourself, your employer, whomever else you have been given license
> to express the opinion of) you would like to state X Y & Z.
>
> Indeed this is how I conduct my public presence, independently of on
> who's behalf I am speaking; and I recognize that even then, one will
> likely still get quoted out of context.
>
> It would be terrible for one to lose their job because they were
> misquoted in the Press as stating the opinion of some entity.
>
> --
> Michael McNamara
> IEEE 1364 Working Group Chairman
> speaking for my cat
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 17:44:43 PDT