RE: [sv-cc] P1800 WG outcome

We can try to pass the others but the priority should be for 56 since I
asked extra time for it as I
think that it needs to be specified.
 
I will check with Charles on his availability.
Francoise
       '

  _____

From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Warmke,
Doug
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 11:59 PM
To: Francoise Martinolle; SV-CC
Subject: 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 Thu Dec 16 06:51:42 2004