Re: [STDS-P1619] Decision to switch SISWG to corporate-based voting / IEEE corporate members list
Jack's email matches what I've heard. There has been talk of higher fees for both individual and corporate groups.
My educated guess is that corporate groups will remain more expensive. Given that both fees may be moving, desciions based on fees are on shaky ground.
We (1667) also have the issue of qualified active contributors without corporate support.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Cole <jack.cole@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 2:08 AM
To: STDS-P1619@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-P1619@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-P1619] Decision to switch SISWG to corporate-based voting / IEEE corporate members list
i should clarifyieee galactic is in very good shape financially
but its component activities are not
the standards association is one that is not
i do not know where the revenue enhancements arise, from ieee or from ieee
sa or both
but ieee sa needs money
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Jack Cole <jack.cole@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> no i have not kept up on billing for parsi absolutely hope it does not
> happen
> but ieee has consistently sought revenue enhancements
> so it is believable
> even though ieee is quite liquid financially (not so their societies)
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:01 PM, jgeldman <jgeldman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> The IEEE has regularly informed us that they have approved an addional per
>> corporate group fee.
>>
>> Our group reaction pretty much matches yours. It hasn't been appropriately
>> communicated or billed. My understanding is that the current agreement is to
>> start billing 1667 members on our next PAR.
>>
>> If billed, it will be a special tax on corporate groups. Be sure what's
>> coming.
>>
>> Jack, i understand you've been part of these disscussions. Any comment?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Austin <austin_r@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 2:11 AM
>> To: STDS-P1619@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-P1619@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [STDS-P1619] Decision to switch SISWG to corporate-based
>> voting / IEEE corporate members list
>>
>> Not hardly ? corporate dues range from $1100 to $5500 per year ? see
>> http://standards.ieee.org/sa-mem/corp_overview.html However, depending on
>> the level of corporate membership, you do get either 2, 6 or 10 free
>> individual memberships in the IEEE-SA.
>>
>>
>>
>> The individual/corporate voting conundrum is pretty common ? as Eric
>> points
>> out, it?s usually done to keep a single organization from wielding too
>> much
>> ballot power in the activities of the organization. The way we dealt with
>> it in another organization was to designate one voting member from each
>> organization with others from the same organizations serving as observers
>> (they could fully participate in all activities except voting).
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> Richard Austin, MS, CISSP
>>
>> "From the character, the institutions, the situation and the circumstances
>> of the adversary, each side will draw its conclusions, in accordance with
>> the laws of probability, as to what the actions of the other will be and
>> determine its own accordingly."
>>
>> -- Carl Von Clausewitz. On War
>>
>>
>>
>> From: James Hughes [mailto:jphughes@xxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:38 PM
>> To: STDS-P1619@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [STDS-P1619] Decision to switch SISWG to corporate-based
>> voting
>> / IEEE corporate members list
>>
>>
>>
>> Stupid question from out of the blue...
>>
>>
>>
>> If you pick corporate-method, can you choose not to have dues?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2009, at 4:51 PM, Eric Hibbard wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>>
>>
>> The short answer is that we are about half way between the
>> individual-method
>> and the corporate-method in the way we handle voting membership, and
>> IEEE-SA
>> is insisting that we pick a method and live with it (no hybrids). We got
>> to
>> this point because there was concern that one or more entities could/would
>> dominate the voting by sending many participants, with each being able to
>> vote.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>>
>>
>> From: David Peterson [mailto:dpeterso@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:23 PM
>> To: STDS-P1619@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [STDS-P1619] Decision to switch SISWG to corporate-based
>> voting
>> / IEEE corporate members list
>>
>>
>>
>> What is the reasoning for changing to something other than an
>> individual-based membership?
>>
>>
>>
>> ?Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Matt Ball [mailto:matthew.v.ball@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 1:31 PM
>> To: STDS-P1619@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [STDS-P1619] Decision to switch SISWG to corporate-based
>> voting
>> / IEEE corporate members list
>>
>>
>>
>> Just to be clear, this motion was made not because the movers are
>> necessarily in favor of it, but that it would be the action that would
>> change the status quo (conversely, a motion to keep the voting as
>> 'individual' would have no effect if it passed or failed). If this motion
>> fails, then we'll stay as an 'Individual' working group, and adjust the
>> operating procedures accordingly to better match the new baseline
>> procedures.
>>
>> Along these lines, Eric Hibbard has created an operating procedures
>> proposal
>> for individual (not corporate) voting. See:
>>
>> https://siswg.net/index.php?option=com_docman
>> <
>> https://siswg.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=189&Ite
>> mid=41> &task=doc_download&gid=189&Itemid=41
>>
>> (changes from the baseline procedures are highlighted)
>>
>> I've added discussion of this proposal to the agenda for the July 15th
>> meeting. If the group decides to move to 'Corporate' voting, we'll need
>> to
>> figure out those Operating Procedures, and change all the PARS.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Jack Cole <jack.cole@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> You might talk with James Borden, Daniel Goodman of the 1667 group, which
>> is
>> entity based, has been from inception. At times 1667 has considered going
>> to
>> individual-based membership. I have not heard that recently, but you can
>> get
>> their perspective on being an entity-based group. One particularly
>> irritating aspect for me personally has been that, even as sponsor chair,
>> I
>> could not vote in 1667 balloting.
>>
>>
>>
>> "James Borden" <James.Borden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 1667 chair
>>
>> "Daniel Goodman" <daniel.goodman@xxxxxxxx>, 1667 secretary
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Matt Ball <Matthew.Ball@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> In today's meeting, we tabled a motion to switch SISWG from
>> individual-based
>> membership to corporate-based membership. We'll hear this motion again at
>> the next meeting on July 15th. To help you make your decision of
>> Individual
>> vs. Corporate membership, here are some links. I've also attached a list
>> of
>> IEEE-SA corporate members, as of June 2009.
>>
>> If we stay with individual membership, there will be no fees for
>> participating in SISWG. If we switch to corporate membership, then the
>> fees
>> range from $1100 to $5500 per year, depending on company size. If you're
>> company is already on the attached list, then you wouldn't need to pay any
>> extra.
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> * http://standards.ieee.org/sa-mem/corp_overview.html - Overview of
>> IEEE-SA corporate membership
>> * http://standards.ieee.org/sa-mem/corpmemlist.html - List of
>> IEEE-SA
>> corporate members
>> * http://standards.ieee.org/corpforum/cag/wgproc.html - Baseline
>> corporate working group operating procedures
>> * http://standards.ieee.org/board/aud/WG_PandP.doc - Baseline
>> individual working group operating procedures
>>
>> I know Eric was about ready to hop on a plane, so I wanted to get these
>> out
>> for review now...
>>
>> Let me know if I missed anything or if you have any questions!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> ADDMM, LLC
>> ARM
>> ASSET InterTech
>> AT&T
>> ATL
>> Accellera
>> Aerotek co., Ltd.
>> Alcatel-Lucent
>> Asahi Kasei Chemicals Corporation
>> BII Group Holdings Ltd
>> Battery Association of Japan
>> Beijing Jiaotong University
>> BioEnergy Solutions
>> BitMeister Inc.
>> Boeing
>> Broadcom
>> Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
>> China Telecommunications Corporation
>> CipherLab
>> Cosmo Research Corp.
>> CyVerse Corporation
>> DISA (Defense Information Systems Agency)
>> DLink Systems, Inc.
>> Dell Inc.
>> Discretix
>> ETRI
>> EmbedTech Industries
>> Epson Electronics America, Inc.
>> FDA
>> FiberHome Networks
>> France Telecom
>> Freescale Semiconductor
>> Fuji Infox-Net Co. Ltd.
>> Fujitsu Computer Products
>> Future Path Medical, LLC
>> Gemalto
>> Genesys Logic, Inc.
>> Gigle Semiconductor
>> Gridpoint Systems
>> Hewlett-Packard
>> Hirotech, Inc.
>> Hitachi Global Storage Technologies
>> Huawei Technologies Co Ltd.
>> IBM
>> IMS GLC
>> ISB Corporation
>> ISTO (IEEE-Industry Standards & Technology Org)
>> ITE Tech, Inc.
>> Ilevo -SEPC
>> Infinico Corporation
>> Intel
>> JEITA
>> KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
>> Kingston Technology
>> Kozo Keikaku Engineering, Inc.
>> LSI
>> Lauterbach Datentechnik GmbH
>> Lexar Media, Inc.
>> Liberty University
>> Lightning Protection Institute
>> Logipard
>> Magma Design Automation
>> Magnadyne Corp.
>> Marvell
>> McAfee, Inc.
>> Mentor Graphics
>> Microsoft Corporation
>> Mobile Power Solutions, Inc.
>> Motorola
>> NICT
>> NVIDIA
>> NXP
>> Nanoradio AB
>> National Communications System
>> Net-O2 Technologies
>> Netac Technology Co Ltd.
>> Neterion, Inc.
>> NexTag
>> Nokia
>> Nortel Networks
>> PCTEST Engineering Laboratory Inc.
>> Panasonic Technologies Company
>> Philips
>> Phison Electronics Corp.
>> Polycom, Inc.
>> Proximetry
>> Pultek Corp
>> QUALCOMM Incorporated
>> Rajant Corporation
>> Research In Motion
>> Ricoh Company, Ltd.
>> Robert Bosch GmbH
>> SDR Forum
>> SISA (Samsung)
>> SOAR Systems, Inc.
>> STARC
>> STEC, Inc.
>> SanDisk Corporation
>> Sanyo
>> Seagate Technologies
>> Semifore Inc.
>> Si2
>> Siemens AG
>> Sig Sauer, Inc.
>> Silicon Motion, Inc.
>> SimpleTech
>> Skymedi Corporation
>> Snap-On
>> Solid State System (3S)
>> Sony Corporation
>> St. Petersburg Electrotechnical Company (SPBEC)
>> Sun Microsystems Inc
>> Sunrise Telecom
>> Synchromesh Computing, LLC
>> Synopsys, Inc.
>> Synplicity, Inc.
>> T-Systems International GmbH
>> TAIS
>> Texas Instruments
>> Thermon Manufacturing
>> Tokyo University of Science
>> Tonen Chemical Nasu Co., Ltd.
>> Toshiba
>> Transparent Visibility (TV-LLC)
>> Trimble
>> UNIPI (University of Piraeus Research Center)
>> Underwriters Laboratories
>> Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)
>> University of Athens
>> University of Sfax
>> Valens Semiconductor
>> Visible Assets, Inc.
>> Wave Systems Corp.
>> Western Digital Technologies
>> Willnet, Inc.
>> Wintegra, Inc.
>> Worldpicom Corporation
>> Xilinx, Inc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks!
>> -Matt
>>
>> http://www.mavaball.net/
>> Cell: 303-717-2717
>>
>>
>>
>