Subject: Re: An Open Process
From: Simon Davidmann (simond@co-design.com)
Date: Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:34:19 PDT
Karen
Exactly my point Karen - the rules have not been followed - there is no
argument as to the rules - just in keeping to them - we shall await the
Vice Chair's deliberations on the matter and then it will be before the board.
Simon
At 01:12 PM 6/20/2002, Karen Bartleson wrote:
>Simon,
>
>I will not participate further in your spat with Vassilios. The rules
>have been established, documented and followed for quite some time. At
>this point, it is not appropriate to argue these rules in emails, copying
>the committee members and others. If you wish to discuss or change the
>rules, this should be done at a board meeting, not as a public email
>explosion.
>
>Regards,
>Karen
>
>At 11:48 AM 6/20/02 -0700, Simon Davidmann wrote:
> >>>>
>>Karen
>>
>>and all those who see this - I suggest you take care and read this email.
>>
>>>Please allow Vassilios and the committees to proceed with their work,
>>>business as it has been in Accellera (and previously OVI) according to the
>>>published TC guidelines, until such time as the board passes any motions to
>>>change existing processes.
>>
>>the problem is that the rules and guidelines are not being followed - and
>>this is my issue
>>
>>the committees want to do their work and are being currently undermined -
>>see the emails being sent on the subject:
>>
>>about Vassilios' process:
>>>>On reflection it seems there is a flaw in the way Accellera manages
>>>>overlaps between it's various technical activities. It looks as though
>>>>the whole of the technical activities are donator-driven rather than by
>>>>users or by identified need, with the consequence there will certainly
>>>>be conflicting and competitive donations across technical
>>>>committees. The mechanism for detecting these early and resolving them
>>>>in a timely and effective fashion seems to be either missing or reliant
>>>>on the good nature of individuals which seems to me to be quite unrealistic.
>>
>>this is the type of sentiment in the committees;
>>>>The time has come to stop accepting donations, for deficiencies to be
>>>>fixed and enhancements added to the selected language and for vendors
>>>>to put Sugar-based tools in the hands of users so we can begin to
>>>>address the verification crisis that is staring the electronics
>>>>industry in the face!
>>
>>and this about the Verilog++ meeting on 5th June and Vassilios' behavior.
>>>In my eight years of work, and sometimes spirited debate, on the IEEE
>>>Verilog committees, I have never witnessed outbursts and behavior
>>>similar to those exhibited in Wednesday's meeting by any committee
>>>member, let alone the committee chair.
>>
>>and this too about Vassilios' comments about the Verilog++ meeting on 5th
>>June
>>>Your statement that we, the HDL+ committee, decided to dissolve the
>>>Verilog++ committee during the 5 June 2002 HDL+ committee meeting is not
>>>correct. I was present, in person, for the entire 8 hour HDL+
>>>meeting. At no time did I hear any discussion of dissolving the
>>>Verilog++ committee. This observation is collaborated in the minutes,
>>>which contain no record of such a discussion. The discussion was to
>>>create subcommittees within the Verilog++ committee, in order to more
>>>quickly review and develop road maps on what should go into SystemVerilog 3.1.
>>>
>>>I did not, do not, and will not vote in favor of, or endorse in any way,
>>>any motion to break the overall definition for SystemVerilog 3.1 into
>>>multiple, disparate committees. It only makes sense to me to keep the
>>>definition of SystemVerilog under a single committee--the Verilog++
>>>committee that defined it to begin with. Subcommittees under that
>>>single parent make sense. Disparate committees with no parent would be
>>>a mistake.
>>
>>pls don't try to wash over the real issues that the committee members are
>>concerned about - the committees want to make progress but Vassilios
>>somehow wants to break all the rules and do what he personally wants
>>rather than the will of the committee members.
>>
>>we must follow agreed rules, guidelines to retain the respect of the
>>industry
>>
>>if individuals can just control things as they see fit - then Accellera
>>will have no respect and will be ignored.
>>
>>surely you do not want this.
>>
>>Simon
>>
>>
>>At 10:59 AM 6/20/2002, Karen Bartleson wrote:
>>>Simon,
>>>
>>>I have resisted getting involved in this until now, but I am compelled to
>>>reply. The board did not agree that Vassilios would await the outcome of
>>>any investigations. I recall stating that this would slow down progress of
>>>the committees. The board agreed to investigate, but did not agree to halt
>>>progress in the meantime.
>>>
>>>Please allow Vassilios and the committees to proceed with their work,
>>>business as it has been in Accellera (and previously OVI) according to the
>>>published TC guidelines, until such time as the board passes any motions to
>>>change existing processes.
>>>
>>>Accellera has the respect of the industry for an effective standardization
>>>process. Our customers (yours, mine and all Accellera members) are anxious
>>>for standards to improve their design flows. Let's not stall progress
>>>while political issues are discussed.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Karen
>>>
>>>At 08:19 AM 6/20/02 -0700, Simon Davidmann wrote:
>>> >Vassilios - you are not following the rules here.
>>> >
>>> >1) donations must be requested by committees
>>> >2) committees must meet and discuss things and vote in subsequent
>>> meetings
>>> >3) forming of committees can only be approved by the board
>>> >
>>> >In the Board meeting last week - which you attended - it was agreed
>>> by the
>>> >Board that you would await the outcome of the investigation into voting,
>>> >processes, committees before moving forward.
>>> >
>>> >As none of the above have been followed what you are doing now has no
>>> >sanction from the Accellera Board of Directors, is in clear violation of
>>> >its rules, and so please refrain.
>>> >
>>> >It seems we will have to elevate these issues to the next Accellera Board
>>> >meeting.
>>> >
>>> >I believe that SystemVerilog is a fundamental core to the work of
>>> >Accellera, its many committees, its public perception, and its direction
>>> >and the creation of committees etc needs to be discussed at the Board
>>> level
>>> >with the Board - as per the rules - and so yes please invite the Board to
>>> >your TCC meetings.
>>> >
>>> >Also - as
>>> >Simon
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >At 07:41 AM 6/20/2002, Vassilios.Gerousis@Infineon.Com wrote:
>>> >>Hello Everyone,
>>> >> I am sending alot of my times trying to get SystemVerilog
>>> 3.1 up
>>> >>and running. I have sent you slides that outline what I propose to
>>> happen.
>>> >>My chairs and I need should be given few days and we will start the
>>> >>activities.
>>> >>So please have patience.
>>> >>
>>> >>1- We will agree on a plan for action with my chairs.
>>> >>2- Each committee will start meeting and planning.
>>> >>3- Assigned donations is being prepared in PDF in small sizes so that
>>> >>we can send each one to the appropriate committee.
>>> >> a- Synopsys was asked to provide smaller chapters to be sent to
>>> >> designated
>>> >> committee. By Friday, I will send an electronic version.
>>> >> b- New additional donations must be discussed with me ASAP.
>>> >>4- We will resolve the issues as we go on. But please help me instead of
>>> >>putting blocks
>>> >>in front me. Give an opportunity, and if I am not fair, then scream
>>> at me.
>>> >>5- My chairs have the additional responsibility to outline how we will
>>> >>synchronize SystemVerilog Assertions with Sugar. Harry Foster and Erich
>>> >>Marschner will help
>>> >>in this matter.
>>> >>
>>> >> So I ask, pretty please to give me a chance to get this rolling
>>> >> ASAP and getting
>>> >>most issues resolved instead of increasing it.
>>> >>
>>> >>Best Regards
>>> >>
>>> >>Vassilios
>>> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----
>>>----------------------------------------------------
>>> >>Dr. Vassilios Gerousis Infineon Technologies
>>> >> DAT CAD, MchB
>>> >>Telephone: +49-89-234-21342 BalanSt. 73
>>> >>Fax: +49-89-234-23650 D-81541 Munich
>>> >>email: Vassilios.Gerousis@infineon.com Germany
>>> >>Site Map:
>>> >><<http://www.stadtplandienst.de/query;ORT=m;PLZ=81541;STR=Balanstr.;HN
>>> R=73>http://www.stadtplandienst.de/query;ORT=m;PLZ=81541;STR=Balanstr.;HNR=73>http://www.stadtplandienst.de/query;ORT=m;PLZ=81541;STR=Balanstr%2E;HNR=73
>>>
>>> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----
>>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> >
>>>___________________________________________________________________
>>>Karen Bartleson
>>>Director, Quality and Interoperability
>>>Synopsys, Inc.
>>>phone: 719-528-5467 (Colorado Springs, CO)
>>>fax: 719-533-0209 (Colorado Springs, CO)
>>>phone: 650-584-4840 (Mountain View, CA)
>>>fax: 650-584-4102 (Mountain View, CA)
>>>mobile:719-330-6727 (anywhere, USA)
><<<<
>
>
></blockquote></x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:36:25 PDT