Thanks, Neil. Stu, if all the discussion convinces you that we can proceed, then the gating item to get started is for you to get me the baseline framemaker documents. I have no worries about incorporating other feedback from the Champions review as part of the work. Regards, John Neil Korpusik wrote: > Hi John, > > The Champions voted on 2226 in an email vote, where one no vote > prevents a > proposal from passing. This is consistent with the other committees. > Voice > votes pass when a majority are in favor. > I have no concern about it, but I just wanted to make sure I understand it. Thanks for clarifying it. > At the Working Group meeting it was agreed to allow the sv-cc to continue > working on mantis 2226. The committee has until September 10th to > complete its > work. This date is based on the timeline shown in one of your emails. > > In the Working Group meeting, it was our understanding that the Editor > will > be kept in the loop on this activity. This is great! I will work with Stu. > > > The Champions will be meeting this Thursday. Mantis 2226 is on the > agenda. > This gives the Champions another opportunity to get any additional > issues with > Mantis 2226 on the table. > > > Neil > > > On 08/18/08 10:35, John Shields wrote: >> 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 >>>> >>>> > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Aug 18 13:45:35 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 18 2008 - 13:48:20 PDT