Subject: FW: Ranking spreadsheet
From: Vassilios.Gerousis@Infineon.com
Date: Thu Aug 16 2001 - 07:55:44 PDT
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerousis Vassilios (CPD DAT)
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 4:50 PM
To: 'Verilolg-AMS@eda.org'
Subject: FW: Ranking spreadsheet
Hi Verilog-AMS team,
I got good feedback from Jon. I am sure we can decide on one of better averages to take advantage of the dont care. I believe what we have ahead of ahead of us is to be able to take the first 10 priorities (as come defined by the voting) and start working this come up with solutions. Then we attack the next 10 and see how far we can get. Since we have a small committee, we should do one at a time. This does not mean that we neglect the other part of the list. The better progress we can make the more that we can solve for this release.
I would like to propose the following:
1- Discuss the proposal if one exist. If it does not exist, then the person who put into place must provide a proposal. If not, then it will be put back the bottom of the list.
2- Criticism of any proposal must be made on a technical merit. A counter proposal can be provided.
3- We will focus on each proposal and complete that proposal.
4- We should try to achieve concensensus. If not then a simple majority vote will be done.
5- Our goals are:
a- Clean up the document (mistakes).
b- Clean up ambiguity.
c- Add enhancements to satisfy technology and users/vendors needs.
6- We cannot have two implementations in the standards. Only one.
7- Any proposal provided must be declared to have no patent implication. If one submitted or obtained. it must be declared. Non-declared items, will be removed.
8- We could assign a team to work on a topic, but we are limited on resources. If there is a suggestion let us hear it.
Let us define on the columns and work on the priorities. Then in our next meeting we will only do technology discussions. Please use the email reflector to generate discussions. Concentrate on technical merits, easy implementation and ease of use. I know that several of the vendors support Verilog/VHDL. We should try to synergies where we can.
Best Regards
Vassilios
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Sanders [mailto:jons@cadence.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 10:29 AM
To: Vassilios.Gerousis@infineon.com
Subject: Ranking spreadsheet
Vassilios,
Thanks for getting this summarized. I am only sending this to you but you
may use any part of this that you choose. The issue I ran into was that you
took the total of each column and then divided by four. If all four companies
voted this worked out well but for most items (not top twenty for those that
did not vote) you get the following: (17 + 0 + 3 + 0 ) /4 = 5 yet if we
were
to only average those two real votes we would get (17 + 3) / 2 = 10. Thus
a no vote actually holds a lot of weight which I think it should not.
Anyway I have added a few columns that give a few other views.
Col. N: Take no votes and give them a default value (in this case 50)
(17 + 0 + 3 + 0)/4 = 5 -> (17 + 50 + 3 + 50)/4 = 30
default value could be changed to 100 to say it has no impact which
would be close to the same impact of dividing by the number of
real votes.
Col. 0: is the order based on column N
Col. P: Takes the total value of each potential vote and then divides only by
the number of real votes. (17 + 0 + 3 + 0)/4 = 5 -> (17 + 3 )/2
= 10
Col. Q: is the order based on column P
Col. R: is the ranking per your method.
Col. S: is the order based on your method
Col. T: is the value of the default value used for non votes which could be
changed to
other value.
Anyway those in the middle don't change much to much but those where two votes
exists and are widely apart get moved adjusted either up or down depending
on how
far apart. Also those that got four votes tended to move up a bit more.
I also wanted to point out that there are several issues that we have come
upon due
to customer feedback as well as Motorola. We are working on clarifying and
in some
cases a proposal. It does not seem like the correct time to throw these
items out as
we need to get control on issues on the table but would be nice to get your
input to
when these other issues should be brought to the table.
Thanks,
Jon
***********************************************************
Jonathan L. Sanders
Product Engineering Director
Custom IC Solutions
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
555 River Oaks Pkwy
San Jose, CA. 95134
INTERNET:jons@cadence.com Tel: (408) 428-5654 Fax : (408) 944-7265
***********************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Aug 16 2001 - 07:57:49 PDT