🚀 go-pugleaf

   STOP Reading News..Get Back To Work!!

   Just Kidding.


   I wish to inform the community that I have 
received a lot of mail (900 lines) regarding 
the creation of comp.sys.cadence since I posted 
the "Request For Discussion" a week ago.    I have 
saved most articles and have appended them below 
for your reference.

   To-date, most responses are favourable in 
creating the newsgroup.   Many positive and
some negative points have been made.   In light of 
not receiving any negative feedback on encouraging 
Cadence employees in participating  in the newsgroup, 
I mailed a copy of the Request For Discussion to 
several Cadence employees thinking that it might 
add to the discussion process (are you listening
Cadence?  What do you think?).   You might want
to notify your local AE as well (send him/her this
message!).

A summary of discussions so far:

  - most say YES, comp.sys.cadence should be created
  - a few say NO because existing traffic on existing 
	newsgroups does not justify it
  - the position in the hierarchy is not ideal but 
	major reorganization is otherwise necessary (e.g. 
	start a new tree; create cae.sys.cadence)
  - cadence employees are encouraged to participate
  - don't exclude discussion and exchange of SKILL code!
  - unmoderated
  - ensure the Cadence User Groups participate 
    (US and British, others...)

Please continue to forward your comments
either to myself or to USENET.   If I understand
the USENET protocol correctly, there is no 
minimum time for the discussion period although
a vote should NOT be held if "there is no general
agreement in these points [name. charter, moderation]". 

*** I plan to stage a vote in about a week. ***

Cheers,
Peter Stokes
Canadian Microelectronics Corporation, eh

pas@jupiter.ic.cmc.ca    


SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION FOLLOWS...
(my apologies to anyone whose 
 message I missed)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <1992Mar6.165931.16286@ccs.QueensU.CA> you write:
>I've written a Call for Discussion (CFD) for the creation
>of comp.sys.cadence and it is currently being reviewed by 
>mgmt locally.   I hope to post it this afternoon (Eastern 
>Standard Time).
>
>Watch for it!
>
>Peter Stokes
>CMC

Thanks for taking the initiative in this. I don't know the procedures real
well (or I would have started a CFD myself), but once it comes to a vote, 
I have LOTS of contacts that I'll encourage to vote for passage of the 
new newsgroup, so I'm pretty optimistic it will pass.

Thanks,
  - Tom A.
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Inet: toma@cray.com
:-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
:-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
:-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------


Peter,

In response to you query about formation of the comp.sys.cadence:

1.  Yes, create the group, this may be one more way to possibly control
    the monopoly which has been evolving in the CAE industry.

2.  Sounds good.

3.  Technical folks only from Cadence, most users *hate* being told that the
    way to fix a problem is to wait six months then pay x dollars for the next
    release of code.... sound familiar?

4.  NO moderation IF mostly technical discussion is involved.  If the sales
    or marketing folks at Cadence get involved, chances are good that flame 
    wars and pissing contests could start.


Good luck!

Best regards,


Howard Wilson
Intel Corporation		Supercomputer Interconnect Components Group
5200 NE Elam Young Parkway	MS CO4-03     Email: hwilson@scic.intel.com
Hillsboro, OR  97124		Phone: 503-629-4341


Peter,
	I am all for a network of users to discuss Cadence issues, problems, etc.  Cadence should
be included and strongly encouraged to participate in information dissemination especially regarding 
bugs, work-arounds, and hot fix release dates and content.  I feel that is their most weak link to 
us as users.  My group is contemplating Edge 2.1 to Cadence 4.2 conversion in the very near future;
any input with regard to overall problems or areas to watch for are only going to come from informed
users.  
Thank you,
John Zeiter

I for one am all for it!

The name is a good one.  (There is already comp.sys.mentor)

Yes, let/encourage Cadence employees to participate.

I don't know the issues envolved with moderated/non...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Butler			 	Telephone : (612) 851-5036   
Cypress Semiconductor Inc.	 	Fax       : (612) 851-5199
2401 E. 86th Street		 	E-Mail    : skb@cypress.com   
Bloomington,MN 55425, USA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>Your comments are solicited:
>
>   1.  should we create it?

Yes.

>   2.  is the name correct (position in the Usenet hierarchy)?

Yes.

>   3.  should cadence employees be encouraged or discouraged 
>       to participate?  (I say encouraged)

Yes.

>   4.  should it be moderated?  (I say not!   Especically not
>       by me!)

No.

>


Rod Rebello
titan!rrebello@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Microchip Technology Inc., Chandler, AZ




YES, we are very interested in this comp.sys.cadence newsgroup.

Tarmo Ruotsalainen
University of Oulu
Electronics Laboratory
Linnanmaa
SF-90570 Oulu
FINLAND
email: (tarmo@ee.oulu.fi)
phone: +358-81-352754
fax:   +358-81-352733


I would very much like to see comp.sys.cadence, and think it is long overdue.
Here at Inmos, we are migrating to Opus tools, and have many questions and
issues come up that would be worthy of newsgroup discussion. My boss, Rob
Youngman, is chairman of the British Cadence User Group, setup by Cadence
last year. I believe there is an American Cadence User Group also, but the
infrequency of meetings (twice yearly) limits the amount of discussion and
information sharing that can take place. The new newsgroup would address
this problem, and allow worldwide sharing.

I think Cadence should be encouraged to take part.

I look forward to voting for the group.

Karl Relton
Inmos CAD group
Bristol

karlr@inmos.co.uk or
karlr@inmos.com


Mr. Stokes

1) we (you) should create comp.sys.cadence
2) the name is correct
3) cadence employees should be encouraged to participate
4) it should not be moderated

we get cadence software at a very low price for universities here in europe.

Joachim Koenig

--
email: joachim@ee.uni-sb.de   University of Saarland, Germany, Europe
phone: +49 681 3023043		     suffering should be creative,
fax:              2678	      should give birth to something good and lovely
<Ende der Fahnenstange>


I'm for the creation of a Cadence/Valid newsgroup. I suspect that the lack 
of traffic on your mail lists reflects the fact that few people know about 
the mailing list. The name seems reasonable, especially given the 
comp.sys.mentor group that was recently created. 

The list should not be moderated! The traffic on this newsgroup will probably 
be light (look at comp.sys.mentor, again), and moderation tends to slow down 
the response time (and usefulness) of the newsgroup. 

People from Cadence/Valid should be encouraged to be involved and contribute 
to the newsgroup. 

Jon Mellott
jon@alpha.ee.ufl.edu
High Speed Digital Architecture Laboratory
University of Florida


I would be very much interested in participating in a Cadence news/users'
group!  Unfortunately, we do not have Usenet access at my site, so I would have
to depend on some sort of mail digest.  Actually, this would be yet another
reason to get our sys admin group to set up  Usenet access here.

I am taking over the Cadence Edge/Opus support at our site from another engineer,
who is moving into a design group.  My background is software development (in C
and assembly)  and Unix system administration; I have much to learn about
semiconductor design.  A Cadence news group would be most useful and educational
to me.  Thanks for your efforts,

Eric Levine
levine@utmc.utc.com


Dear Peter -

	I would like to see the creation of a comp.sys.cadence newsgroup.
	I think it would be more accessible than the current cadence mailing
	list that you've been maintaining.  I think the name is fine.  

	I find that I haven't posted CADENCE related questions in comp.lsi
	because I didn't think it was an appropriate forum.  The questions
	in comp.lsi tend to be more generic.

	My company has a very large install base of CADENCE products, and I've
	been active in the CADENCE user's group.  One of the users tried to
	start a CADENCE news group last year, but I don't know what became
	of that (other than it obviously didn't succeed.)

	I wasn't sure where to post this as a follow up article, so if you
	want to post it for me, you have my permission.

	- Candy Culhane
	


> I for one am all for it!
> 
> The name is a good one.  (There is already comp.sys.mentor)
> 
> Yes, let/encourage Cadence employees to participate.
> 
> I don't know the issues envolved with moderated/non...
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Scott Butler			 	Telephone : (612) 851-5036   
> Cypress Semiconductor Inc.	 	Fax       : (612) 851-5199
> 2401 E. 86th Street		 	E-Mail    : skb@cypress.com   
> Bloomington,MN 55425, USA
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, it's ABOUT TIME you crawled out of the woodwork!! I've been looking
for any sign of life from you for some time now...

Don't you read comp.lsi.cad? I've been posting there lately about Cadence...

Regarding the newsgroup, I have been compiling a list of supporters and I
believe we can immediately get at least 100 votes in favor, so I'm confident
that comp.sys.cadence will pass quickly when it comes to a vote (after the
30-day discussion period).

Anyway, good to hear from you!
  - Tom A.
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Inet: toma@cray.com
:-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
:-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
:-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------

In article <1992Mar30.185017.11502@athena.mit.edu>, jgealow@mtl.mit.edu (Jeffrey C. Gealow) writes:
 I also would like to see more exchange of ideas and information regarding 
 Cadence.  However, I think it is naive to assume that creation of a 
 new newsgroup will serve this goal.  At present, comp.lsi.cad is an 
 appropriate forum for Cadence discussions.  There is certainly not 
 an overwhelming amount of traffic on comp.lsi.cad.  I doubt many people 
 are refraining from Cadence discussions because comp.lsi.cad is inconvenient 
 or inappropriate.  I would not like to see the creation of another 
 group like comp.lsi.testing where the volume of stupid net testing 
 messages exceeds the volume of productive messages.  My position is this: 
 wait until there is a large volume of Cadence traffic on comp.lsi.cad, then 
 think about a new group.  In the meantime, perhaps some of the traffic 
 on private Cadence lists could be routed to comp.lsi.cad.
 
 Jeff Gealow
 jgealow@mtl.mit.edu

In article <1716@fnnews.fnal.gov>, hoff@fasic0.fnal.gov (Jim Hoff x2807) writes:
 In article <1992Mar26.154820.20194@ichips.intel.com>, nehal@ichips.intel.com (Nehal Desai) writes:
 |> 
 |> Hi:
 |> 
 |> I saw some discussion about starting a newsgroup on Cadence..
 |> comp.sys.cadence. 
 |> 
 |> Are people still interested ? Any update on this ?
 |> 
 |> Sounds like a good idea to me...!
 |> 
 |> 
 |> 				Nehal
 
 I like the idea.
 
 			Jim Hoff
 			Fermilab

In article <1992Mar29.063218.9699@athena.mit.edu>, ankleand@mtl.mit.edu (Andrew
Karanicolas) writes:
 I think a Cadence newsgroup would be a good idea.
 
 Andrew Karanicolas
 MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratory
 ankleand@mtl.mit.edu


In article <1992Mar30.195609.9781@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, csculha@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Candace S. Culhane) writes:
 I think this is a good idea.  But someone needs to issue a call.
 Where did the original poster hear about this?  I think there's a mentor
 newgroup now.


In article <1992Mar30.170731.28581@walter.cray.com>, toma@cray.com (Thomas R. Arneberg) writes:
 In article <1992Mar30.185017.11502@athena.mit.edu> jgealow@mtl.mit.edu (Jeffrey C. Gealow) writes:
   [...]
 >I doubt many people 
 >are refraining from Cadence discussions because comp.lsi.cad is inconvenient 
 >or inappropriate.  I would not like to see the creation of another 
 >group like comp.lsi.testing where the volume of stupid net testing 
 >messages exceeds the volume of productive messages.  
 >
 >Jeff Gealow
 >jgealow@mtl.mit.edu
 
 This is a different circumstance. comp.lsi.testing is a subset of comp.lsi,
 while comp.sys.cadence is not. I personally have often refrained from 
 posting to comp.lsi.cad when I would have posted to comp.sys.cadence. I
 have posted a few general questions here, but I feel it would be rude to
 post a question to comp.lsi.cad such as this:
 
 	"When doing an installation of Framework II software, why does
 	the shiplist.master file not get regenerated when the size field 
 	in the control.master file is not zero?"
 
 This question would go nicely into a comp.sys.cadence, but would be an
 irritating intrusion in comp.lsi.cad, since it has nothing to do with
 circuits, lsi, CAD algorithms, etc.
 
 Followups to news.announce.newgroups.
   - Tom A.
 ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
 ;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Inet: toma@cray.com
 :-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
 :-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
 :-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
 ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------


In article <1992Mar30.220709.9535@ee.ubc.ca>, daveg@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Gagne) writes:
 In article <dfs.701983768@wesley> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
 >In <1992Mar30.181049.26775@uunet.uu.net> pas@jupiter.ic.cmc.ca (Peter
 >Stokes) writes:
 >
 >>Call For Discussion:  Creation of comp.sys.cadence 
 >>...
 >>        Name: comp.sys.cadence
 >
 >I think "comp.sys.xxx" is for discussion of computer systems, not
 >application software packages.  Maybe "comp.lsi.cadence" or
 >"comp.lsi.cad.cadence" would be better?
 
 Yep, I think this is the right place for it as well.
 -- 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |  Dave Gagne.              | UBC VLSI Lab                                  |
 |  daveg@ee.ubc.ca          | University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article <1992Mar30.162954.28198@walter.cray.com>, toma@cray.com (Thomas R. Arneberg) writes:
 In article <1992Mar30.181049.26775@uunet.uu.net> pas@jupiter.ic.cmc.ca (Peter Stokes) writes:
 >Call For Discussion:  Creation of comp.sys.cadence 
 >
 >   - an effective forum for discussion of problems, 
 >     solutions, pains and gains related to Cadence tools 
 >     is desirable.
 >   - some interest has been expressed on comp.lsi.cad
 >   - Cadence just merged with Valid, placing them as a very 
 >     significant player in the CAD s/w marketplace.
 >   - there rates to be lots of discussion about migrating
 >     to Opus/Amadeus in the future
 >   - mentor users have their own newsgroup :-)
   [...]
 >     Charter: Discussion on CAE tools by Cadence Design 
 >	      Systems, including:  requests for assistance, 
 >	      solutions to problems, new tools, old tools, 
 >	      company mergers and purchases, migration to 
 >	      new frameworks (e.g. FMKII), gripes and wishes.   
   [...]
 >Your comments are solicited:
 >
 >   1.  should we create it?
 >   2.  is the name correct (position in the Usenet hierarchy)?
 >   3.  should cadence employees be encouraged or discouraged 
 >       to participate?  (I say encouraged)
 >   4.  should it be moderated?  (I say not!   Especically not
 >       by me!)
 
 1. Yes, we should DEFINITELY create it!
 2. The name sounds fine to me
 3. Cadence employees should be encouraged to participate, but frankly I
    predict that most of the useful transfer of information will be from
    other users
 4. No, should not be moderated.
 
 The time is ripe for this newsgroup...I've been in contact with dozens of
 users at training classes and other newsgroups that are waiting for a
 Cadence newsgroup with baited breath.
 
 The upgrade and integration of Framework II tools will instigate a lot of
 discussion. Another major area not mentioned yet is the discussion and
 exchange of SKILL programs to customize the interface, traverse the design
 database, extract netlists, create shortcuts, etc.
 
   - Tom A.
 ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
 ;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Inet: toma@cray.com
 :-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
 :-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
 :-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
 ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------

In article <1992Mar30.234031.23496@odin.corp.sgi.com>, rodman@pkr.asd.sgi.com (Paul Rodman) writes:
 I would welcome comp.sys.cadence! 
 
 -- 
 Paul K. Rodman            "Drat these computers! They're so nasty and 
 rodman@sgi.com             complicated....I could just _pinch_ them!"
 KA1ZA                                              -- Marvin Martian 

In article <31686@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, karplus@cse.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus) writes:
 Starting a new newsgroup (comp.sys.cadence) is an awful idea.
 There are maybe one or two messages a month about Cadence tools on
 comp.vlsi.cad, and the mailing list maintainers admit that they have
 almost no traffic as well.
 
 Creating new newsgroups doesn't create interesting traffic, unless
 there is no existing newsgroup that is clearly related.  
 
 If anything, there should be an RFD for eliminating comp.lsi.testing and
 merging comp.lsi and comp.lsi.cad into comp.cad.
 
 Kevin Karplus



YES YES YES!!!!   
We have recieved alot of benefits from newsgroups
which we are a part of here at Micro-Rel...and
I have been a bit disappointed with the mailing
distribution of cadence@cmc.ca as the traffic is
next to nil....

Anyway, looking forward to it!

Kate Seastone
Sr. Software Engineer 	
Medtronic; Micro-Rel division
Tempe, AZ    (602) 929-5344
kate@urel.medtronic.com




I am all for the creation of comp.sys.cadence. We are seriously
considering Framework, as well as Analog Artist, and I would definitely
participate in this group.

gord wait
S-Mos Systems Vancouver


In article <1721@fnnews.fnal.gov>, hoff@fasic0.fnal.gov (Jim Hoff x2807) writes:
 In article <1992Mar30.181049.26775@uunet.uu.net>, pas@jupiter.ic.cmc.ca (Peter Stokes) writes:
 |> Call For Discussion:  Creation of comp.sys.cadence 
 
 * Stuff Deleted
 
 |> And so this is a Call For Discussion for the creation of:
 |> 
 |>         Name: comp.sys.cadence
 |>      Charter: Discussion on CAE tools by Cadence Design 
 |> 	      Systems, including:  requests for assistance, 
 |> 	      solutions to problems, new tools, old tools, 
 |> 	      company mergers and purchases, migration to 
 |> 	      new frameworks (e.g. FMKII), gripes and wishes.   
 
 		DON'T FORGET SKILL!
 
 |>    Exclusion: Discussion on the Verilog language as this is 
 |> 	      taking place on comp.lang.verilog.
 |>   Moderation: Unmoderated.
 |> Side effects: Shutdown of cadence@cmc.ca mailing list 
 |> 	     
 |> 
 |> Your comments are solicited:
 |> 
 |>    1.  should we create it?
 
 	Absolutely.
 
 |>    2.  is the name correct (position in the Usenet hierarchy)?
 
 	In my opinion, The only other possible location would be 
 		comp.lsi.cadence.
 
 |>    3.  should cadence employees be encouraged or discouraged 
 |>        to participate?  (I say encouraged)
 
 	Encouraged, bribed, forced at gun-point, whatever....just make 
 		sure they participate.
 
 |>    4.  should it be moderated?  (I say not!   Especically not
 |>        by me!)
 
 	No moderation...
 
 |> 
 |> So let the discussions begin!
 |> -- 
 |> Peter A. Stokes                                 pas@jupiter.ic.cmc.ca
 |> Engineering Application Support
 |> Canadian Microelectronics Corporation 
 |> Kingston  Ontario  Canada
 
 ---
 Jim Hoff					hoff@fasic5.fnal.gov
 Research Division/Detector Electronic Systems
 Fermi National Accelerator Lab
 (708)840-2807


Yes... it should be created...
Yes... the name sounds good...
Yes... Cadence employees should take part...
Yes... it should be unmoderated...

Very good idea all around...

                                    Phil
----
 Phillip L. Akers
 pakers@netcom.com
 freyr!pakers@netcomsv.netcom.com
 wa4dde@wa4dde.ampr.org (44.4.0.47)
 

In article <1992Apr1.071344.25899@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, smb@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Steve M. Burinsky) writes:
 In article <1992Mar30.185017.11502@athena.mit.edu> jgealow@mtl.mit.edu (Jeffrey C. Gealow) writes:
 >I also would like to see more exchange of ideas and information regarding 
 >Cadence.  However, I think it is naive to assume that creation of a 
 >new newsgroup will serve this goal.  At present, comp.lsi.cad is an 
 >appropriate forum for Cadence discussions.  There is certainly not 
 >an overwhelming amount of traffic on comp.lsi.cad.  I doubt many people 
 >are refraining from Cadence discussions because comp.lsi.cad is inconvenient 
 >or inappropriate.
 
 How about unknown and inappropriate.  While Cadence may be known for its
 IC tools, the "new" Cadence/Valid direction will be very much systems
 oriented.  Comp.sys.cadence seems more appropriate in that regard.
 
 I believe Cadence employs should be encouraged to participate both in an
 unofficial and official capacity.
 -- 
 
 Steve M. Burinsky
 smb@afterlife.ncsc.mil


In article <1992Mar31.014242.27432@ssigv.UUCP>, lewis@ssigv.UUCP (Don Lewis) writes:
 In article <dfs.701983768@wesley> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
 >In <1992Mar30.181049.26775@uunet.uu.net> pas@jupiter.ic.cmc.ca (Peter
 >Stokes) writes:
 >
 >>Call For Discussion:  Creation of comp.sys.cadence 
 >>...
 >>        Name: comp.sys.cadence
 >
 >I think "comp.sys.xxx" is for discussion of computer systems, not
 >application software packages.  Maybe "comp.lsi.cadence" or
 >"comp.lsi.cad.cadence" would be better?
 
 How about comp.cad.cadence?  Doesn't Cadence have pc board tools?
 -- 
 Don "Truck" Lewis              Phone: +1 916 478-8284   Silicon Systems
 Internet: lewis@ssi1.com       FAX:   +1 916 478-8290   138 New Mohawk Road
 UUCP: {uunet,tektronix!gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com}!ssigv!lewis  Nevada City, CA  95959

In article <BJORN.B.LARSEN.92Apr1080932@engels.delab.sintef.no>, Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (Bjorn B. Larsen) writes:
 In article <dfs.701983768@wesley> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
 >In <1992Mar30.181049.26775@uunet.uu.net> pas@jupiter.ic.cmc.ca (Peter
 >Stokes) writes:
 
 >>Call For Discussion:  Creation of comp.sys.cadence 
 >>...
 >>        Name: comp.sys.cadence
 
 >I think "comp.sys.xxx" is for discussion of computer systems, not
 >application software packages.  Maybe "comp.lsi.cadence" or
 >"comp.lsi.cad.cadence" would be better?
 
 comp.sys.mentor was originally suggested as comp.lsi.mentor, but that
 name was changed due to the response from a large number of netters.
 
 Perhaps the best idea might be a comp.cad hierarchy:
 
   comp.cad.cadence
   comp.cad.mentor
 
 I shall not propose this now, but I will suggest that the name for this
 specific group is kept as
 
   comp.sys.cadence.
 
 There is, however, another question that bothers me: Will there be
 enough traffic to justify this creation? There are only a few cadence
 related posts on comp.lsi.cad, and hardly any on the two mailing lists
 (according to the RFD).
 
 Bj{\o}rn
 --
 ______________________________________________________________________
                s-mail:                 e-mail:
 |   |   |      Bjorn B. Larsen         bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
 |__ |__ |      SINTEF DELAB
 |  \|  \|      N-7034 TRONDHEIM        tel: +47-7-592682 / 592600
 |__/|__/|_     NORWAY                  fax: +47-7-591039 / 594302
 ______________________________________________________________________


In article <1992Apr1.072614.4175@csqx.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk>, adrian@csqx.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk (A Johnstone) writes:
 I am greatly in favour of a Cadence news group because we need the advice of
 seasoned users. However, it is also clear that presently the level of traffic is
 very low. Of course, this may be a chicken-and-egg problem here since the 
 non-existance of the newsgroup discourages discussion.
 
 Two points that might affect the decision - the UK now has a large number of new
 Cadence users as a result of the Eurochip initiative. The UK has only recently
 started running TCP/IP protocols over its internal academic network, and as a 
 result access to Usenet News has previously been difficult for many sites. The
 combined effect is that the potential audience for this newsgroup has probably 
 just exhibited a step up. I will forward the call to several colleagues in an 
 attempt to stir up some response.
 
 --
 Adrian Johnstone, Department of Computer Science, University of London, RHBNC
 adrian@cs.rhbnc.ac.uk


In article <1992Apr1.072614.4175@csqx.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk>, adrian@csqx.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk (A Johnstone) writes:
 I am greatly in favour of a Cadence news group because we need the advice of
 seasoned users. However, it is also clear that presently the level of traffic is
 very low. Of course, this may be a chicken-and-egg problem here since the 
 non-existance of the newsgroup discourages discussion.
 
 Two points that might affect the decision - the UK now has a large number of new
 Cadence users as a result of the Eurochip initiative. The UK has only recently
 started running TCP/IP protocols over its internal academic network, and as a 
 result access to Usenet News has previously been difficult for many sites. The
 combined effect is that the potential audience for this newsgroup has probably 
 just exhibited a step up. I will forward the call to several colleagues in an 
 attempt to stir up some response.
 
 --
 Adrian Johnstone, Department of Computer Science, University of London, RHBNC
 adrian@cs.rhbnc.ac.uk



In article <1992Mar30.181049.26775@uunet.uu.net> you write:
>Call For Discussion:  Creation of comp.sys.cadence 
>
>Your comments are solicited:
>
>   1.  should we create it?

Yes!

>   2.  is the name correct (position in the Usenet hierarchy)?

I think so, but I don't know for sure.  The only other places I could think of
where it might belong would be in sci.comp-aided.cadence, comp.org.cadence, or
biz.comp.software.cadence.

>   3.  should cadence employees be encouraged or discouraged 
>       to participate?  (I say encouraged)

I agree they should be encouraged.

>   4.  should it be moderated?  (I say not!   Especically not
>       by me!)

I doubt very much that the volume will be high enough to require a moderator.

>
>According to accepted Usenet protocol:
>
>   1.  this CFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups and 
>       also to any other groups or mailing lists at all related to 
>       the proposed topic

Maybe you should have posted this to comp.sys.mentor too.

>   4.  if this call for discussion generates postive feedback on 
>       the creation of comp.sys.cadence, I will conduct a vote 
>       for a 21 to 31-day period following the discussion period.

I'd recommend a 31 day voting period.  The news we receive at our site is
often two weeks to a month old.  If the voting period is only 21 days, I might
miss the call for votes.

-John

-- 
    *  *  *		John Witters			voice:	(206) 356-5274
  *  \      *		John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc.
 *    \      *		P.O.B. 9090 M/S 241F		fax:	(206) 356-5116
*   DRIVING   *		Everett, Washington  98206-9090	     or (206) 356-5174
 *      \    *
  *      \  *		domain:	witters@tc.fluke.COM
    *  *  *		uucp:	{sun,microsoft,uw-beaver}!fluke!witters
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!


A Cadence newsgroup is a good idea.  We (NCR Microelectronic Products Division)
tried to set one up a while ago, but didn't get enough response.  Your
recommended newsgroup name is OK. Cadence folks should be encouraged to
participate.  Technical problem solving is my key interest.  We ported our
design kit to Amadeus (currently Amadeus 4.2) and have lots of experience. A few
problems remain.  Moderation is not necessary.


In article <Apr.1.16.56.14.1992.24825@pilot.njin.net>, limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli +1 908 754 1082) writes:
 lewis@ssigv.UUCP (Don Lewis) writes:
 
 >In article <dfs.701983768@wesley> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
 >>In <1992Mar30.181049.26775@uunet.uu.net> pas@jupiter.ic.cmc.ca (Peter
 >>Stokes) writes:
 >>
 >>>Call For Discussion:  Creation of comp.sys.cadence 
 >>>...
 >>>        Name: comp.sys.cadence
 >>
 >>I think "comp.sys.xxx" is for discussion of computer systems, not
 >>application software packages.  Maybe "comp.lsi.cadence" or
 >>"comp.lsi.cad.cadence" would be better?
 
 >How about comp.cad.cadence?  Doesn't Cadence have pc board tools?
 
 Considering the complete LACK of traffic on the current comp.lsi
 newsgroups, why create this newsgroup?  Is anyone else a bit tired of
 newsgroups being created to foster traffic, rather than use the
 newsgroups that currently exist?
 
 I really think a newsgroup should only be created as the result of a
 split (to reorganize or better represent a current newsgroup) or to
 cover an honestly uncovered topic doesn't fit anyplace else.
 -- 
 Tom Limoncelli -- limonce@pilot.njin.net


In article <1992Apr2.064843.1376@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, smb@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Steve M. Burinsky) writes:
 >How about comp.cad.cadence?  Doesn't Cadence have pc board tools?
 
 Cadence's new emphasis (especially with the Valid merger) will very much
 be in the systems area, including PC board design and analysis.
 Currently, there is no comp.cad hierarchy.  I would suggest that maybe
 eda is better than cad, to include CAD/CAE/etc.  I could see this group
 starting a new branch in one of two hierarchies.  Either:
 	comp.eda.cadence or comp.apps.eda.cadence
 In either case, comp.sys.mentor is definitely in the wrong place, so let's
 not use that as a guide!
 
 >Considering the complete LACK of traffic on the current comp.lsi
 >newsgroups, why create this newsgroup?  Is anyone else a bit tired of
 >newsgroups being created to foster traffic, rather than use the
 >newsgroups that currently exist?
 
 I'd use the right one if it existed.  Comp.lsi.cad isn't it.  Both
 comp.lang.verilog and comp.lang.vhdl saw very little traffic in their
 early days, but have matured into a steady stream of appropriate traffic.
 I believe the same will be true of comp.{apps.}eda.cadence.
 
 >I really think a newsgroup should only be created as the result of a
 >split (to reorganize or better represent a current newsgroup) or to
 >cover an honestly uncovered topic doesn't fit anyplace else.
 
 You have just made the best argument yet for reorganizing comp.lsi.cad
 to comp.{apps.}eda.cadence and comp.{apps.}eda.mentor!
 -- 
 
 Steve M. Burinsky
 smb@afterlife.ncsc.mil


In article <1992Apr2.064843.1376@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, smb@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Steve M. Burinsky) writes:
 >How about comp.cad.cadence?  Doesn't Cadence have pc board tools?
 
 Cadence's new emphasis (especially with the Valid merger) will very much
 be in the systems area, including PC board design and analysis.
 Currently, there is no comp.cad hierarchy.  I would suggest that maybe
 eda is better than cad, to include CAD/CAE/etc.  I could see this group
 starting a new branch in one of two hierarchies.  Either:
 	comp.eda.cadence or comp.apps.eda.cadence
 In either case, comp.sys.mentor is definitely in the wrong place, so let's
 not use that as a guide!
 
 >Considering the complete LACK of traffic on the current comp.lsi
 >newsgroups, why create this newsgroup?  Is anyone else a bit tired of
 >newsgroups being created to foster traffic, rather than use the
 >newsgroups that currently exist?
 
 I'd use the right one if it existed.  Comp.lsi.cad isn't it.  Both
 comp.lang.verilog and comp.lang.vhdl saw very little traffic in their
 early days, but have matured into a steady stream of appropriate traffic.
 I believe the same will be true of comp.{apps.}eda.cadence.
 
 >I really think a newsgroup should only be created as the result of a
 >split (to reorganize or better represent a current newsgroup) or to
 >cover an honestly uncovered topic doesn't fit anyplace else.
 
 You have just made the best argument yet for reorganizing comp.lsi.cad
 to comp.{apps.}eda.cadence and comp.{apps.}eda.mentor!
 -- 
 
 Steve M. Burinsky
 smb@afterlife.ncsc.mil



Hello everyone!

I just wanted to say that I've seen Peter's RFD on net news (and the discussion
that has followed.) As I recall, we will need 100 MORE yes votes that no votes
in order to get this group created. So make sure you let everyone know. I plan
to send out an email to my contacts at Cadence today to ask them to get involved
with this so that we get every possible vote.

Also, the next edition of the Cadence User Group Newsletter will be out soon. I
will post a table of contents when we finalize it. (Next week, most likely.)
If you do not receive a copy by the end of April and are interested in having
one let me know and I will see that you get one and are put on the mailing list.

Finally, we are going to be sending out a "call for papers" soon for the
International User Group Meeting which is being held in Boston, Massachusetts
in August. It is our hope that we get lots of users willing to present papers
so that we do not have to sit through tons of Cadence marketing talks! If you
have ANY bit of information you wish to share - or know of someone who does -
please contact me. Talks can range from 15 minutes to 45 minutes and can be
on any subject relating to any Cadence/Valid tool. Also, this could be a great
way to get management to spring for the cost of the trip...

BOSS: "Gee, we'd like to send you to the Inaternational Meeting but..."

YOU: "Well, the board just called this morning and asked if I would present a
paper on that new Skill program that saves us lots of time. And it would be 
good advertising for the company."

BOSS: "Sounds good to me, I'll put in the paperwork."

Ok, so you get the idea. :-) Anyway, we do really need user participation to
make this a success. Also, we have a surprise for users who present papers this
year. But that will hve to wait until the official call for papers comes out.

Chuck Phillips
Integrated Device Technology, Inc
2670 Seeley Ave
San Jose, CA 95134
(408)944-2052
(408)944-2195 (FAX)
uunet.uu.net!idtg!cwp
International Cadence User Group, Layout SIG Chair





Peter,

I think it would be a great idea. As comp.sys.mentor already exists it is
only natural to add Cadence to the same group structure as comp.sys.cadence.

I think that Cadence would want its employees to participate and I am in favor
of encouraging it.

As for moderation, it is good for quality control but I see comp.sys.cadence
more as a common information forum. I therefore recommend that it not be
moderated.

Al Keddy.
 ______________________________________________
 W. Al Keddy, Applications Programmer/Analyst
 Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
 University of Victoria
 P.O. Box 3055                          PHONE:  (604) 721-6016
 Victoria, B.C.                         FAX:    (604) 721-6052
 Canada  V8W 3P6                        E-MAIL: wakeddy@ECE.UVic.Ca



I would like to join the new cadence group, but I just wonder we can
share what we have done in individual company or university. 

Oscar


----------------------------------------------------------------------