I can hardly believe it. I’ve been in the EDA business since 1980 when I joined TI’s Design Automation Department after graduating from Cal Poly with my BSEE. Since 1995, much of my attention has been focused on EDA standards. I reached a moment of truth this year when I admitted, albeit reluctantly, that I could be called a standards-lifer. So, I decided it’s time to share my perspectives on what’s going on in the standards arena. Welcome to my blog - I can’t wait to hear from you! The 5th Commandment for Effective Standards
Posted by Karen B on February 5th, 2009
It’s time for the next Commandment for Effective Standards.
Number 5 is: Realize There Is No Neutral Party.
For anyone involved in the standards game, this knowledge is crucial. Everyone participating in standards has a mission to accomplish, be it for business, law, safety, technology, or personal reasons. No one would spend a valuable minute or a precious penny on a standards activity for which they didn’t care about a specific outcome.
People can be surprised when they come to understand how not-neutral standards participants are. An engineer who is new to a committee can be horrified to discover that another committee member has been purposely delaying progress by throwing up smokescreens that sound like policy discussions. An EDA vendor can be perplexed when another vendor who has participated in developing a standard for years suddenly announces an alleged essential patent. And a customer can be shocked upon discovering shenanigans that feel like vandalism when attempting to survey the industry about which of two standards is preferred.
I’ve always chuckled when an organization claims to be a “neutral third party”. It happens usually in the midst of a standards struggle, and on the surface it seems to be an answer to a settlement. In truth, the NTP (how’s that for a new acronym?) has something to gain. In the case of one famous – I should say infamous – standards battle (see the last paragraph of the article), the NTP stood to increase membership and bring in additional funding.
Keeping the 5th Commandment for Effective Standards in mind before jumping into a standards activity can help you gain a broader perspective and quell some of the emotions associated with any skirmishes that might erupt.
If anyone can find a truly neutral party in the standards game, I’d be fascinated to learn about it.
EDA standards blog The Standards Game
10 Commandments effective standards
power standards UPF Unified Power Format CPF Common Power Format
verification standards VMM Verification Methodology Manual OVM Open Verification Methodology
patents essential patents SystemVerilog P1800
RSS
So, would it be a standards faux pas if someone actually pointed out in public what side/strategy they felt everyone was taking? Then instead of arguing about things, we could have a vote and all go on vacation for the length of time of any desired delay
.
JL
JL,
One can certainly do this. If willing to risk their own strategy being revealed, that is. That conversation is exhilarating.
Karen
Vote … did someone say vote
In all seriousness, with respect to the Accellera VIP TSC, I believe that OVM and VMM are just proxies for the respective vendors’ simulation products. So there is obvious vested interest in the outcome. Given the state of the industry and economy, those battles have an even greater significance now.
Or as they great philosopher Guido the Killer Pimp once said, “In a sluggish economy, never ever (mess) with another man’s livelihood”.
Hi Karen,
Right on! Everyone has an agenda. I was pretty shocked when I attended my first few standards meetings.
I would have loved to have read your blog beforehand.
Take Care,
Mike
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] this standard could be challenging. Is it possible to have an objective standard? Enjoy this blog entry on the notion of “objective” standards. Can the standard be developed quickly enough to avoid [...]