1. IEEE DASC/CAG Cooperation December, 2008 Victor Berman, IEEE DASC Chairman

2. DASC/CAG Goals l Through mutual cooperation, support and further each other’s goals and mission l Specific areas: l Improve standards development tools and methods l Improve mechanisms for industry feedback l Improve international collaboration and outreach l Improve environment for Corporate Standards l Promote growth of entity-based standards l Promote critical mass in EDA-related technology sectors

3. DASC-sponsored Entity Standards l Six active projects l Three completed standards l Most prolific sponsor of entity standards to date l Future projects will be DASC-only sponsor, no need for joint sponsorship with CAG

4. Standards Development Tools and Methods l Currently MyBallot does not support corporate standards l Obvious first step is to get support asap l Tools need improvement to integrate with common databases such as Mantis l Need to enhance and promote web-based support l Most groups must provide their own tools, either through freeware such as GNU or commercial tools which are expensive and non-standard - leads to problems integrating with IEEE tools l Growth of XML-based standards not well supported by IEEE web services l Complicated business model l Expense not comparable to commercial hosts

5. Industry Feedback l Current mechanisms for industry feedback are not well- coordinated l IEEE Societies and Councils hold workshops and conferences, but there is no clear path to standards groups for the results and discussions l CEDA was conceived with the idea of improving communication and planning between societies and standards groups l This has been slow to evolve l DASC has begun to work with CEDA for coordination l It is not clear if this is the right mechanism l Need collaboration with CAG if we want to pursue this path l Need discussion of best mechanism, both internal to IEEE and external, to other industry groups

6. Improve Environment for Corporate Standards l Value proposition needs work l While some groups immediately grasp value of corporate program, others find it hard to understand or support l Fee structure too rigid and not tied to costs l Large groups pay a lot l Groups doing minor work may not get company support l Companies active in many groups pay a lot l Predicated on concept of quick completion l This is not always the case, especially for follow on work l For example, P1800 initial standard was quick; update has dragged on. This is a typical scenario but the cost structure discourages technical work from being done inside IEEE. l Need more flexible program to accommodate multiple scenarios l ideas need discussion and refinement but should include: l Flat or maximum fee for active companies l Flat or maximum fee for large working groups l Additional services included that differentiate from individual based WGs.