RE: IEEE-SA Ballot results and discussion

And indeed, this makes sense to me to do this time as well, and quite a number of the comments appear to be easily addressed.
 

Michael McNamara   |   Vice President and General Manager, System Level Design
M: 1.408.348.7025  W: www.cadence.com E: mcnamara@cadence.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ieee1647@eda.org [mailto:owner-ieee1647@eda.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Piziali
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:06 AM
To: darren.galpin@infineon.com
Cc: ieee1647@eda.org
Subject: Re: IEEE-SA Ballot results and discussion

Darren, you wrote:

> The IEEE-SA 1647 ballot results are as follows: ...

> ... It should be noted that we do not have to address these [comments]
> for this standard in order for it to progress - perhaps Andy and Yaron
> would like to share their experiences on this. ...

For P1647-2008 I believe we tried to accommodate those comments that
would not require a re-ballot, whether the comment "Must Be Satisfied"
field was marked "Yes" or "No." If the change request was reasonable
and improved the LRM, we rolled it if it not delay final publication.

Thanks.

-- 
	Andrew Piziali, <andy@piziali.dv.org>, +1-214-455-8577
	Skype andrew_piziali
"Without acronyms, by the time you got halfway through the conversation,
the technology in question would be obsolete." -- Brian R. Santo,
"Acronym Addiction," "IEEE Spectrum," 10/06
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.