Hi Stu, The status of Mantis 2226 will be discussed in the Working Group meeting tomorrow morning. We should wait for a decision from that meeting to know how to proceed. Neil On 08/13/08 14:01, Stuart Sutherland wrote: > John, > > > > I appreciate the extra effort you are willing to take to update the > proposed changes to a draft6 baseline. I also appreciate your good will > and understanding after all the criticism on the current proposal. I > think it is prudent to wait for Neil to give a go-ahead from the > champions and/or Working Group to make this update, but as soon as I > have that I will send the darft 6-clean FrameMaker source of the > affected sections to you and Chas. > > > > A critical factor is that the timeline you suggested needs to be > escalated in order for this to work. I need to complete the editing for > draft 7 by September 8. This means I need the updated—and > approved—version of the proposal no later than midnight PDT September 4, > and even that is pushing the limits for incorporating this large of a > set of changes into draft 7. The champions may need time prior to > September 4 to re-approve the item, leaving even less time for the CC > committee to make the updates. > > > > Can the CC committee commit to revising, and reviewing, an update to the > proposal in time? > > > > Neil, will the champions need to review the updated proposal (assuming > the champions and Working Group have conditionally approved the current > proposal)? > > > > Stu > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Stuart Sutherland > stuart@sutherland-hdl.com > +1-503-692-0898 > > www.sutherland-hdl.com > > > > *From:* John Shields [mailto:John_Shields@mentor.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:59 AM > *To:* stuart@sutherland-hdl.com > *Cc:* 'Bresticker, Shalom'; 'Jim Vellenga'; Neil.Korpusik@sun.com; > sv-champions@eda.org; 'SV-CC' > *Subject:* Re: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August 13th > > > > Stu and Shalom, > > We discussed this in SV-CC today. I will make a proposal to you both, > which I would like explicit agreement on, before proceeding. Provided > the champions are also OK with the implications, we can address your > concerns. A couple of comments first. > > This path we took on 0226 was intended to help Stu, by starting from a > current baseline document in Framemaker source and making it possible to > use the FROM diagrams via cut/paste. He supported it at the start. We > think the difficultly expressed by Stu, than he cannot use the posted > frame files because the baseline is too old, is a genuine concern. This > only happened because the scope of problem was large and the time to > build consensus was long. If this was not the case and the baseline was > still good, I trust that Stu would have much less concern about > editorial error. > > In looking at Stu's comments regarding the best way to handle changes to > the diagrams, I followed that procedure. You may see a diagram and its > text that could have been handled more minimally or without the FROM/TO > version. What you may not appreciate in your final review is the value > that a larger context had in supporting a full understanding nor any > intermediate changes that may have initially been larger in scope. Where > a FROM/TO diagram was used, the entire diagram and its details were > taken consistently. SV-CC prefers that, but we can see where the > details text can sometimes be handled more minimally. We acknowledge > that in some cases, a single modified diagram rather than FROM/TO would > have been better for the editor too, but probably only in retrospect > after the scope of change was finalized. If you recall the perspective > that 0226 dynamic information model was at an impasse and SV-CC needed a > long extension on schedule to work through it in 1Q-2Q 2008, bringing it > to closure was all we could do. This feedback would have been easier to > deal with if it was more timely, but here we are. Let's make a good > decision from here. > > The proposal I make to you both is to redo the changes in Framemaker > starting from a clean version of draft 6 or any other baseline that Stu > prefers. I will follow the model described by Stu below and attempt to > minimize the change. The value judgment about minimal will be mine. > Since there are no guidelines about the details section associated with > most diagrams, if I use a TO/FROM format for the diagram, I will > continue to copy the entire diagram but show all changes to the details > section only in the FROM version of the diagram. I think this addresses > 100% of the spirit of all your editorial feedback. If you still wish to > negotiate the process and provide more guidelines, fine. > > When you both agree, and I recieve the baseline documents in framemaker, > I will need 2 weeks to recompose the changes to clauses 36 and 37. I > trust I do not need to redo annexes C, L, and N. (If you disagree, > please say so immediately.) The SV-CC will need an opportunity to check > my work. This is strictly an editorial recomposition to assure that Stu > has a LOW RISK of editorial errors. The Champions meet next week and I > am out of the office now until early next week. A practical look at the > calendar tells me that SV-CC can complete this no earlier than 9/10. > > Regards, John > > > > Stuart Sutherland wrote: > > I guess it’s time for me to add my two cents worth on this thread. I > have looked over all 80 pages of the proposed changes from an editor’s > perspective. Shalom is correct that change proposals do not follow the > normal conventions. Mantis 2226 will be very time consuming to add into > draft 7, and has a VERY HIGH RISK of editorial errors. I cannot use the > FrameMaker files posted on the web site directly, as they are based on > an obsolete draft of the standard that do not reflect other changes. > The posted FrameMaker files do make it easier to cut-and-paste into > draft 7 (PDF and Word files cannot be directly cut-and-pasted; I have > to convert them to plain text, and then re-apply all formatting by > hand). However, it will be both difficult and error prone for me to > figure out WHAT colored text in the posted FrameMaker files should be > implemented in draft 7, and what colored text does not belong in the > proposal (i.e. leftovers from earlier drafts. > > > > Ideally, the CC committee should re-do the proposed changes based on a > clean version of draft 6, so that the only changes between draft 6 and > the proposal changes are shown in color. If the CC does not do this, > then they need to accept the risk of editorial errors, with little time > to review and correct them. I can provide the CC committee with the > FrameMaker source files of a clean version of draft 6 (only the clauses > affected), if needed. > > > > Regarding the best way to handle changes to diagrams, small changes can > be shown using coloring in the diagram (blue for new, red for > to-be-deleted). Changes that involve lots of moving things around are > best handled by have the “From” cross out the entire old diagram and the > “To” providing an entirely new diagram. The new diagram does not need > to show items to be deleted (that’s in the crossed out diagram). The > new diagram should not be all blue (it’s a pain to remove the colors for > subsequent drafts), but coloring specific new things in blue might be > helpful for those looking for specific changes within the replaced diagram. > > > > Stu > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Stuart Sutherland > stuart@sutherland-hdl.com <mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com> > +1-503-692-0898 > > www.sutherland-hdl.com <http://www.sutherland-hdl.com> > > > > *From:* owner-sv-cc@eda.org <mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org> > [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Bresticker, Shalom > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:38 PM > *To:* Shields, John; Jim Vellenga > *Cc:* Neil.Korpusik@sun.com <mailto:Neil.Korpusik@sun.com>; > sv-champions@eda.org <mailto:sv-champions@eda.org>; SV-CC > *Subject:* RE: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August 13th > > > > Thanks for clarifying. > > The editor should clarify that he is willing to take it in this format. > > > > Personally, I also found that including enormous amounts of material > that did not change at all made spotting the changes much more > difficult. For example, all of 36.9 (Instance) appears twice, taking > four pages, for a simple 1-line change, the addition of detail 9. I > think that is out of proportion. > > > > When I or the editor looks for the change, he has to look over the > entire thing for possible changes, then double-check that he did not > miss anything. Having changes appear in both FROM and TO sections means > doubling the amount of material that needs to be visually scanned. No > wonder this proposal has 5 parts and 80 pages. > > > > Regards, > > Shalom > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Shields, John [mailto:John_Shields@mentor.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:55 AM > *To:* Bresticker, Shalom; Jim Vellenga > *Cc:* Neil.Korpusik@sun.com <mailto:Neil.Korpusik@sun.com>; > sv-champions@eda.org <mailto:sv-champions@eda.org>; SV-CC > *Subject:* RE: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August > 13th > > Hi Shalom, > > > > I've reviewed the changes that concerned you today. What I did in > the diagrams and associated notes follows a pattern I saw in other > diagram changes in SV-CC. The strikeouts are noted on the FROM: by > me and the desired result is noted in the TO parts. This applies > specifically to 36.16 and 36.17, but in fact is used consistently > throughout my changes. > > > > It makes sense in the diagrams (though I understand the confusion it > caused you) to show the composition of the final diagram, text > labels, etc. with the deletions removed and no longer taking real > estate. I did it consistently, so I treated diagram's detail notes > no differently than its property descriptions in this respect. > 36.16 is a perfect example of that. If that aspect is what is > confusing, I am responsible. > > > > [ As far as strikeouts in the version from Stu, there are a couple > of examples of strikeouts (e.g., 36.50, note 5), but nothing > relevant to the confusion. I shouldn't have mentioned it. ] > > > > There was a concern in the Champions minutes you raised about a bad > cross reference, p806 36.16, detail 26. Just to let you know, that > text came from Stu's draft 5 and is entirely in green in that > version. It is identified in the margin as coming from Mantis 1684. > It is an issue, but has nothing to do with 02226. > > > > I think Stu should allay your concerns and tell you he can deal with > 0226 as-is */_or_/* indicate that we need to revise diagram details > and show the strikeouts there. Please note that he */_will not_/* > be able to ignore the diagram FROM sections. They have to be > reviewed for strikeouts in any case. As Jim Vellenga pointed out, > this has been standard practice for SV-CC diagram edits. > > > > Please let me know if this works. I am only in the office tomorrow, > so any editorial changes would most likely wait until Monday. > > > > Regards, John > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:46 AM > To: Shields, John; Jim Vellenga > Cc: Neil.Korpusik@sun.com <mailto:Neil.Korpusik@sun.com>; > sv-champions@eda.org <mailto:sv-champions@eda.org>; SV-CC > Subject: RE: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August 13th > > > > John, > > > > Can you give an example of strikeouts that were in the version you > > received from Stu, i.e., not part of the proposal? Are any of them red, > > or are they other colors? > > > > If all red strikeouts are part of the proposal, I guess I can handle it, > > but the editor will need to say that he is willing to accept a proposal > > where both the FROM and TO parts of changes he needs to implement. > > > > Regards, > > Shalom > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: John Shields [mailto:John_Shields@mentor.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:36 AM > > > To: Jim Vellenga > > > Cc: Bresticker, Shalom; Neil.Korpusik@sun.com > <mailto:Neil.Korpusik@sun.com>; > > > sv-champions@eda.org <mailto:sv-champions@eda.org>; SV-CC > > > Subject: Re: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending > > > August 13th > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I have been out of the office since last Wednesday. > > > Tomorrow, when I return, I will absorb the Champions feedback > > > and try to address the issues. Some of the strikeouts were in > > > the version I got from Stu, and I would not have re-colorized > > > any of that. I can re-verify starting from that base version. > > > We reviewed this a number of times, with the structural model > > > and colorization for the edits. We saw what we expected to > > > see, so it should be reasonable to clarify for you. I am only > > > in the office Tu and We this week, so I will be prompt. > > > > > > Thanks for your patience, > > > John > > > > > > Jim Vellenga wrote: > > > > Shalom, I agree that the changes are confusing. > > > > > > > > John, who put this proposal together, hasn't responded yet, > > > so let me > > > > say what I remember. In order to simplify the changes for > > > Stu, John > > > > Shields asked him for a copy of work in progress, and > > > annotated that. > > > > When this first happened, the copy that he obtained was > > > between draft > > > > 5 and draft 6. You'll see from the note at the top of the > proposal > > > > for clause 36 that Stu's existing changes are supposed to > > > be in green, > > > > although I haven't confirmed that all those changes are in draft 6. > > > > > > > > You have observed, correctly I believe, that the strikeouts are > > > > occurring in the "REPLACE" section rather than in the > > > "WITH" section, > > > > and that this is unusual. In John's defense, I will note > > > that when we > > > > do strikeouts from the diagrams, we really haven't had any other > > > > choice; John seems to have extended this practice to the > > > text parts as > > > > well. > > > > > > > > However, I have paged through the proposal for 36 just now > > > myself and > > > > it looks pretty clear that all the strikeouts marked in red > > > are as the > > > > SV-CC intended as part of the approved proposal. John > > > seems to have > > > > done that consistently. > > > > > > > > Would it be helpful to invite John to comment on specific > instances? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Jim Vellenga > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > James H. Vellenga 978-262-6381 > > > > Software Architect (FAX) 978-262-6636 > > > > Cadence Design Systems, Inc. vellenga@cadence.com > <mailto:vellenga@cadence.com> > > > > 270 Billerica Rd > > > > Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179 > > > > "We all work with partial information." > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > ]-----Original Message----- > > > > ]From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org <mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org> > [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On > > > ]Behalf Of > > > > Bresticker, Shalom > > > > ]Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 11:34 AM > > > > ]To: Bresticker, Shalom; Neil.Korpusik@sun.com > <mailto:Neil.Korpusik@sun.com>; sv-champions@eda.org > <mailto:sv-champions@eda.org> > > > > ]Cc: SV-CC > > > > ]Subject: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending > > > August 13th ] > > > > ]Similarly, the diagram for 36.17 Variable select (should be > > > > ]36.18) shows > > > > ]"vpiValid" being deleted (red strikeout) in the FROM part, > > > ]while it > > > > does ]exist in Draft 6. > > > > ] > > > > ]It looks like many of the deletions are being shown in the FROM > > > > parts, ]while additions are being shown in the TO parts. > > > > ] > > > > ]Also, as noted above, some of the section numbers are > > > ]different in > > > > Draft ]6. > > > > ] > > > > ]Regards, > > > > ]Shalom > > > > ] > > > > ]> -----Original Message----- > > > > ]> From: owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org > <mailto:owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org> ]> > > > > [mailto:owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of ]> > > > Bresticker, > > > > Shalom ]> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 1:38 PM ]> To: > > > > Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM <mailto:Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM>; > sv-champions@server.eda.org <mailto:sv-champions@server.eda.org> ]> > Cc: SV-CC ]> > > > > Subject: RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August 13th ]> ]> > > > > Something is not clear about Mantis 2226. > > > > ]> > > > > ]> A part of the proposal changes the details of Section > > > 36.16, ]> the > > > > VPI diagram for 36.16. > > > > ]> A page numbered 798 has "REPLACE diagram on next page:", ]> > > > > followed by pages 799-802, "WITH diagram on next page:" on ]> page > > > > 803, followed by pages 804-807. > > > > ]> > > > > ]> What is not clear to me is that p. 801, in the "FROM" > > > > ]> section, shows details 23 and 26-28 with red-strikeouts, > > > ]> whereas > > > > in Draft 6, the details exist and have not been deleted. > > > > ]> > > > > ]> I don't know whether someone thought they were supposed to > be ]> > > > > struck out in Draft 6, or there is another proposal for Draft ]> 7 > > > > that strikes them out, or whether this proposal is striking ]> > them > > > > out. > > > > ]> > > > > ]> Regards, > > > > ]> Shalom > > > > ]> > > > > ]> > -----Original Message----- > > > > ]> > From: owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org > <mailto:owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org> ]> > > > > > [mailto:owner-sv-champions@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of ]> Neil > > > > Korpusik ]> > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 4:53 AM ]> > To: > > > > sv-champions@server.eda.org > <mailto:sv-champions@server.eda.org> ]> > Cc: sv-sc@server.eda.org > <mailto:sv-sc@server.eda.org> ]> > > > > > Subject: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August 13th ]> > ]> > > > > > SystemVerilog Champions, ]> > ]> > This is a call for an > > > abbreviated > > > > email vote. As we agreed ]> to in the ]> > conference call this > > > > morning, this email vote will run for 6 days, ]> > ending on > > > > Wednesday, August 13th (7pm PST). > > > > ]> > > > > > ]> > > > > > ]> > List of Mantis items for a Champion's email vote: > > > > ]> > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > ]> > 1. 2226 Approve the proposal Yes ___ No ___ > > > > ]> > Abstain ___ > > > > ]> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ]> Intel Israel (74) Limited > > > > ]> > > > > ]> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential ]> > > > > material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any > > > ]> review > > > > or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If ]> you are > not > > > > the intended recipient, please contact the sender ]> and delete > all > > > > copies. > > > > ]> > > > > ]> > > > > ]> -- > > > > ]> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous > > > ]> content > > > > by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > > > > ]> > > > > ]> > > > > ]> > > > > > > > > ]--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ]Intel Israel (74) Limited > > > > ] > > > > ]This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential > > > material for > > > > ]the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or > > > distribution > > > > ]by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > > > > ]recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > > ] > > > > ] > > > > ]-- > > > > ]This message has been scanned for viruses and ]dangerous > > > content by > > > > MailScanner, and is ]believed to be clean. > > > > ] > > > > ] > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Intel Israel (74) Limited > > > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Intel Israel (74) Limited > > > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Aug 13 18:43:28 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 13 2008 - 18:43:43 PDT