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

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

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

4. Standards Development Tools and Methods
Currently MyBallot does not support corporate standards
Obvious first step is to get support asap
Tools need improvement to integrate with common databases such as Mantis
Need to enhance and promote web-based support
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
Growth of XML-based standards not well supported by IEEE web services
Complicated business model
Expense not comparable to commercial hosts

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

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