Re: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August 13th

Hi, all,

Stu requested that the editing be done after he completes draft 7 on that draft.  He is proposing to deliver Draft 7 to the SV-cc by September 10.  Could the editing be done by September 22 or so?  

Making this schedule work does require that the last open items except for 2226 freeze completely by the P1800 meeting  in a week and a half.

Thanks,

Karen

----- Original Message ----
From: John Shields <John_Shields@mentor.com>
To: Neil.Korpusik@sun.com
Cc: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com>; Jim Vellenga <vellenga@cadence.com>; sv-champions@server.eda.org; SV-CC <sv-cc@server.eda.org>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 11:30:31 AM
Subject: Re: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - ending August 13th

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.