Hi Neil, I saw the vote results today. I don't know the Champions voting model, but it seems like a "United Nations" style, 1 no vote vetoes the proposal. I see in the details there are some small editorial issues and, of course, the notion to re-baseline the changes to draft 6. There is no clarity on taking that action in the vote and, what was of concern is whether the timeframe to get it all done was going to work or not for all concerned. I would caution that if days go by without deciding and then we suddenly agree to the proposed dates, it will become a "day for a day" slip. Do you have enough from the meeting to decide or is there some further pending discussion? Regards, John Neil Korpusik wrote: > 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 Mon Aug 18 10:37:03 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 18 2008 - 10:37:20 PDT