Open Core Protocol International Partnership Governing ... - OCP-IP

Ian stated that the Marketing Working Group was progressing very well on its goals. Ian said thatthere were several press releases and numerous articles this quarter. Ian said that the group hadbeen focusing more on seminars and less on tradeshows. Ian said that there were many OCParticles and mentions in the press, and OCP-IP was represented at many conferences, so thatour (expensive) presence at tradeshows was not currently worth the cost. Ian said that we woulddo a regular booth at DATE, and if there was extra money we might attend some of theMicroprocessor Forums. Drew suggested that the MWG may want to think about attending theMulticore Expo.AI (VTM): Evaluate Multicore Spring seminar in the US and the value of attending it againstavailable funds (January 15, 2007).Drew asked if the group had ever thought about getting a booth at the ARM developer’sconference. Drew said that some of the highest volume ARM chips contained OCP. Ian askedwhere the conference took place. Drew replied that it took place in Santa Clara in early October.AI (VTM): Evaluate possible attendance cost/benefits of ARM developer conference in Fall2008. (April 1, 2007)Ian said that seminar collaborations were going well. Ian added that the ITRI seminar wascoming up and there were four others earlier in the year. Ian said that membership goals werebeing reached. Ian said that OCP-IP had ten new members from Asia. Ian commented thatSasken and Spreadtrum needed to be paying members as opposed to Participants. Ian told thegroup that they had reached their goal of five GSC members. Ian said that there was still thepossibility for new GSC members and he was open for candidates if there was anyone that theboard wanted to consider. Ian concluded by saying OCP-IP membership had reached 191members.AI ReviewThe group reviewed and updated the GSC Action Item list.AI (Ian): Talk with Steve about participation levels in the FVWG. (January 5, 2008)AI (Ian): Re-approach Tom Andersen and ask for feedback regarding interest in FVWGparticipation and the development of something to validate OVM strategy. (November 22,2007).Ian reviewed his conversations with Tom Anderson of Cadence and Dennis Brophy of Mentorregarding OVM. Ian stated that Tom said that phase one of the work between Mentor andCadence was set to be finished at the end of the year. Ian said that because OVM was openthere would be no licensing issues if there was OVM activity in the FVWG. Ian said that Mentorsuggested there was a possibility that they might help build an OCP verification IP, but they arecurrently, heavily occupied with Cadence on phase one. Ian stated that phase one wasscheduled to be complete by the end of this year and phase two would revolve around developingbooks, seminars, guides and materials to educate people about OVM. Ian asked the GSC ifthere was some action that our organization should be taking. Drew said that he thought anopportunity was available for the OVM community to be lead by Cadence and Mentor. Ian askedwhat it was we are trying to get out of this relationship. Drew said OCP-IP was trying to gainstronger participation from some members in the community, and that there was a significantmarketing benefit in allowing members to use OCP-IP to promote some of their new methods.Ian said that Tom stated that Cadence needed to do preliminary groundwork activities beforepursuing anything with OCP-IP. Drew said this may not happen in the first quarter of 2008. Ianasked if the timeframe was critical to the GSC. Drew said that it did not sound like OCP-IP was indanger of missing anything. Drew said that the GSC should have another discussion late in thefirst quarter, and pose the question of what could then happen after phase one of Cadence andOCP-IP CONFIDENTIALGoverning Steering Committee Meeting Minutes 11/8/2007Page 19 of 22