Minutes of the July 7, 2003 SV-BC Meeting (Design Modelling Committee) 0 Day 7 0 Month 7 0 Year 3 a Tom Kiley a Matt Maidment a Brad Pierce a Karen Pieper a Johny Srouji a Dan Jacobi a Dave Rich a Francoise Martinolle a Jay Lawrence Attendence for voting counting starts today from scratch. Agenda: Review operating guidelines Open issues list Gathering of new potential issues Separate compilation update Review operating guidelines: Jay sent an email with several issues to the reflector this morning. He pointed out that it is possible to find issues review, and requiring an implmementation is overly strict. The standard should be clearer on ability of users to provide feedback. Submissions must be done by a certain date, but there is no restriction that the vote has to wait until that date has been reached. So we could just vote for the first one and not take any others. Also, there is no consistant style in the LRM, so requiring style match is an easy way to dismiss submissions. Champions having veto power over submissions is outside the role of the technical chair to appoint. Johny mentioned that the TCC discussed this with the understanding that the Champions will not abuse the power, and since they have the best overview of the whole language, can best judge how proposals fit in the entire language. Dave believes that "implementation" can be stretched to include user feedback. He sees the role of the champion as to provide focus to the committees. Jay indicated that if we have a commitment for donation date and do not allow any votes blocking other submissions until after the commitment date so that the first proposal isn't the one likely to be taken, that would be ok. Johny will take Jay's comments up with the TCC Issues list: Karen will check with David to see what the status is on the issues entry project Karen will close 1. 2. Tom to ask Dennis if we can close this one. Is DVCON paper enough definiton? Karen moves that we close 3. Dave seconds. No opposed. Jay abstains. Passes. 4. Gord was not able to find someone. This probably requires a donation. Dave will see if he can find someone to donate. Karen moves that we close 5. Jay seconds. No opposed. Tom abstains. Passes. 6. Shalom needs to explain the issue more fully. If the issue is not more fully explained by the close of the submission window, we will close the issue. 7. Dave agrees that there is still an issue here. We are not assigning an owner. We need to add a delayed status to the status possibilities. Issues that don't have proposals by the submission window can be marked deferred. 8. Proposal exists. We should discuss this in the next meeting. 9. 8 needs to pass first. 10. Section 4.2 takes care of this for all integral types by allowing the access. Dave moves that we close 10. Karen seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. 11. Is there wording on the Verilog 2K spec for this? What about implicit instantiated modules defined within a module. We will ask Stuart for a clarification (top level only, nested modules?) 12. Brad will come up with a proposal. 13. Karen moves that we close the issue. Dan seconds. Dave is opposed to closing the issue. No abstain. Passes. 14. Leave as open during donation period 15. Karen moves that we close this one. Dave seconds. No opposed. Jay abstains. Passes. See section 18.8.5 in 3.1 standard. 16. Leave as open during the donation period 17. Karen owns this one 18. BNF is incomplete and can be simplified for ports. Brad and Danny will drive. 19. Leave as open during the donation period 20. Dan to look at it. 21. Can be combined with 14. Karen will close this one and add a pointer to it from 14. 22. Karen owns this one. 23. Dan to make a proposal. 24. See section 8.5.2. So this issue is resolved. Karen moves we close it. Dave seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. 25. Karen moves we close this one. Brad seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. 26. A.2.7 resolves this. Karen moves we close this one. Dan seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. 27. Karen owns this one 28. Karen owns this one 29. Same as 7. Karen will close this one and have 7 point to it. 30. Discuss this next meeting. 31. Section 7.3. Karen moves we close this issue. Dave seconds. No opposed. No abstain. Passes. 32. Karen to check the minutes for more info on the issue. 33. Karen owns this one 34. See A.1.4, A.2.1.2, A.2.9, 19.2.2. Karen moves that we close this issue. Dan seconds. No opposed. Jay abstains. Passes. Gathering new potential issues. Send issues through email until we can get the other system up and running. Separate compilation status The separate compilation committee initially developed a document defining the requirements for a solution that supported separate compilation. Randy made a proposal to replace $root with namespaces. Karen is developing a proposal that leaves $root in tact, but allows users and tools to define separate compilation units within which $root exists. Our next meeting will be July 21, 2003 at 9am PDT.