RE: [sv-cc] P1800 WG outcome

Francoise,
 
You had a busy day today!
Thanks for all the work.
 
I'm available on Friday for a meeting anytime before 2pm EST.
Are we going to try and pass the remaining immediate priority
items (62, 53, 56, and 77)? I would suggest we give it a shot.
 
Regards,
Doug
 

________________________________

        From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Francoise Martinolle
        Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:07 PM
        To: 'SV-CC'
        Subject: [sv-cc] P1800 WG outcome
        
        
         
        I attended the 1800 WG meeting today.
        The errata we passed today (in our CC meeting) were stated as
passed during the WG today.
        However since the champions recommended to the WG that these not
be voted on (for various reasons),
        the 1800 WG decided that they would wait for the January 5th to
vote on them. Note that the champions
        meet next week on the 22 of December and will review those
proposals and provide their recommendation
        for the January 5 th meeting.
        The PLI 1.0 section was voted on and our recommendation to
deprecate it and delete it from the LRM
        was passed. However there was some arguing from Alec against
removing the sections relative to PLI1.0.
         
        Additionnally, Karen asked me if there was any CC errata which
in "my opinion" needed to be resolved before
        going to ballot. I felt that the only one to my knowledge which
needs a standard specification is the fullname
        for packages and objects declared in packages. My opinion was
based on the discussion we had today in our
        meeting. She gave us until Friday evening to agree on a proposal
for this so that the proposal can be reviewed
        by the champions on the 22nd. I will be making a proposal for 56
by email to try to get consensus.
        Then Charles or I will be calling up a meeting before Friday to
discuss and formerly vote on the sent proposal.
        If we fail to pass this proposal then the behaviour will be
unspecified by the standard ( and I think that this is bad).
         
        The errata which are still outstanding with immediate priority
are:
          62 (has informal proposal in description)
          53 (has formal proposal)
          56 (needs revised proposal)
          77 (has informal simple proposal in description)
         
        I will shortly send an email to request time/date for discussion
item 56. Please try to be available.
         
        Francoise
               '
         
         
         
Received on Wed Dec 15 20:59:13 2004