[sv-cc] [Fwd: Re: [P1800] Questions on our activities during the ballot period.]

From: Charles Dawson <chas_at_.....>
Date: Wed Feb 23 2005 - 11:47:37 PST
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [P1800] Questions on our activities during the ballot period.
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:42:40 -0600
From: Johny Srouji <srouji@us.ibm.com>
To: chas
CC: IEEE1800 <ieee1800@eda.org>, owner-ieee1800@eda.org, SV-CC
<sv-cc@eda.org>




Hi Charles,

I think you raise valid questions and I will reply to you later in the
afternoon my time.

In general, the process "spirit" is to enable timely and quality ballot
resolution for the issues that will be raised during the ballot. Please
note that in the ballot letters which were sent to registered entities,
I have urged them to send me their ballot votes and issues as soon as
they can, and if possible before 24 March. I would be forwarding ballot
issues and working w/ Karen and the Champions group in filtering and
forwarding ballot issues to the committees. Therefore, you probably need
to start the work before April 6th.

I will send you a detailed response and directions later in the afternoon.

Thanks,

--- Johny.




Charles Dawson <chas@cadence.com>
Sent by: owner-ieee1800@eda.org

02/23/2005 12:22 PM
Please respond to
chas


To
IEEE1800 <ieee1800@eda.org>
cc
SV-CC <sv-cc@eda.org>
Subject
[P1800] Questions on our activities during the ballot period.






Hi P1800 Committee,

The SV-CC Committee met today, and discussed Karen's email about our
current schedule.  We had a number of questions, which I was tasked to
ask you.  They are:

   - Can we work on stuff that the Reporter say that will show up on
     a ballot?

     It is assumed that the people reviewing the documents will end up
     filing (or having someone file for them) Mantis issues as they are
     found.  Presuming that the Reporter for these issues indicates that
     they intend to include it in their ballot, can we start working on
     them?  Some issues may take a while to resolve, and this would increase
     the likelihood of them being resolved within our timeline.

   - Can we continue to work on stuff that are targeted for the next
     version of the document?

     The email from Karen indicates that we cannot even DISCUSS items that
     are not targeted for this version of the document.  We thought this
     was a bit restrictive (in principle), even though we acknowledge that
     we are likely to be too busy reviewing the document ourselves to
     really work on further out stuff.

   - Timeline for beginning work on the next document?

     There was also a question as to when we can expect to begin working on
     items for the next document.  Do we have to wait for a new PAR?  If so,
     when would that happen?  If not, when can we expect to wrap up the
     current version and therefore start the next one?

   - Where in minutes does it say we are prohibited from further
     discussion/work on issues?

     We took an (admittedly) cursory look at the minutes from the P1800
meeting,
     and could not find the text describing what was in Karen's email.  Can
     you clarify when this was discussed, and exactly what was decided at the
     P1800 meeting?

   - Can we close items that were resolved as part of the editing process?

     We have several items which were intentionally not addressed by the
SV-CC
     committee because we knew that they would get resolved through the
     editing process.  Can we at least act on these items, since they
will not
     require an actual change to the document?

The SV-CC Committee decided to meet again next Wednesday with the
expectation
that you will have responded to our queries by then.  Without further
direction
from you, it is likely that we will postpone our activities until the
April 6th
meeting.

   -Chas

P.S.  I've included Karen's original email for reference.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Please Read: Schedule for responding to balloting feedback
Date: Fir, 18 Feb 2005 11:45:24 -0800
From: Karen Pieper <Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com>
To: srouji@us.ibm.com, <Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com>,
<matthew.r.maidment@intel.com>, Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com,
Mehdi.Mohtashemi@synopsys.com, <Neil.Korpusik@sun.com>, chas,
<Ghassan.Khoory@synopsys.com>, <fhaque@cisco.com>, <Arif.Samad@synopsys.com>



Hi, SV-* Chairs and Co-chairs,

         After yesterday's P1800 meeting, I can now communicate the
process for work in the P1800 SV-* committees going forward.  Please
note that the schedule is very tight, and that there are some suggested
all day Face-to-Face meetings that need to be scheduled below.

February 22:    The balloting process opens.  As feedback is filed with
the IEEE, it will be forwarded
         to Johny, and he is likely to forward it on to me and the
Champions for preliminary processing
         into buckets (see March 28 below).

         The committees may wish to leave open the opportunity to meet in
this time in case some
         feedback is forwarded to the committee; however, the committees
are NOT         AUTHORIZED to discuss any issue not raised in the ballot
feedback
         forwarded from the Champions until further notice.  Please
update your
         committee agendas as required.

March 24:       The ballot closes.

March 28:       P1800 will receive the accumulated feedback filed with
the balloting.
         This feedback will be given to the Champions to sort into
several buckets:

         1)  Issues that may require substantive changes to the LRM are
forwarded to the SV-* committees
         2)  Issues that are editorial changes will be forwarded to Stu
         3)  Issues that are "not a bug" are commented on appropriately
and passed back to the P1800

         The P1800 recommends that the champions have a face-to-face all
day meeting to complete
         this process.

March 31:  The Champions are complete with their initial classification
and assignment of issues to
         committees.

         The P1800 recommends that the SV-* committees plan an all day
face-to-face to deal with the
         issues raised.  Possible resolutions are:

         1)  Changes are made to the LRM to address the issue
         2)  Addressing the issue is determined to decrease consensus in
the committee is so noted on
                 the issues spreadsheet.
         3)  Other determination of the issue is made and is also so
noted in the issues spreadsheet
                 Note:  Saying that an issue will be delayed to a future
release is not an allowed response.

April 12:  The committees are complete with their LRM updates and issue
spreadsheet updates.

         The Champions will meet, do their review of LRM changes looking
for inconsistency, etc.
         This is likely to be a phone meeting.

April 15:  The Champions have completed their analysis and the data is
forwarded to the P1800.

April 19:  The P1800 has a WG meeting in Austin to approve the changes
and responses.

May 3:  The updated draft is ready for editorial review of the changes

May 9:  The re-ballot draft is complete

May 10:  Voting on the re-ballot draft starts.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Karen

----- end included message -----

-- 
Charles Dawson
Senior Engineering Manager
NC-Verilog Team
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
270 Billerica Road
Chelmsford, MA  01824
(978) 262 - 6273
chas@cadence.com




-- 
Charles Dawson
Senior Engineering Manager
NC-Verilog Team
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
270 Billerica Road
Chelmsford, MA  01824
(978) 262 - 6273
chas@cadence.com
Received on Wed Feb 23 11:47:43 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 23 2005 - 11:47:45 PST