Subject: [sv-ac] Minutes of SV-AC meeting 9/12/02
From: Tom Fitzpatrick (fitz@co-design.com)
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 07:21:31 PDT
Milestone review
comments: Please includes start/end dates for each milestone.
Balloting process.
FH: Is one week sufficient for the ballot process? FVTC has used 2 weeks.
AK: When will we discuss the issues on which folks disagree on the
preliminary ballot?
SM: There should be one ballot, and whatever doesn't get a majority should
be dropped.
EM: Any requirements that don't have a clear majority should be deferred.
EM: 2 weeks are suggested because of holidays in Israel (9/15-16, 9/20-28)
CE: Can vote by 9/19, but concerned about discussion.
HF: will vote be done via email?
AK: Don't think disussion will be complete today.
FH: Can we have another meeting before 9/19?
HF: Why 9/19. We should take the time to do it right.
RR: Is email the appropriate forum for resolving issues that have come up?
FH: Encourage everyone to use email to resolve issues.
TF: Some issues that have been raised can be discussed after the
requirements ballot.
FH: Let's start reviewing the ballot and see how far we get.
OVA Donation discussion
FH: If everyone reviews the document, we can have a 20 minute presentation
on OVA followed by discussion. Erich has also asked for time to present PSL.
PN: If it is to be accepted as a resource, then that's fine.
EM: Will this also be handled as a major issue vote by email?
PN: It should.
FH: It is a major issue.
PN: Propose to accept the donation as a resource, and review it next week to
be balloted by 9/26.
EM: A PSL presentation would help get everyone in this group up to speed on
where the DWG is going.
FH: The DWG strategy is to identify a common subset of OVA and PSL.
TF: The requirements will be voted on, and the common subset is likely to
address the majority of requirements. Any additional requirements will be
addressed after that.
RR: It sounds like OVA is already being considered as a
AK: What is unique about the donation?
CE: Believes that PSL is sufficiently robust that the donation is not
needed.
AS: What does it mean to be used as a resource? Is Synopsys comfortable with
OVA being a resource?
TF: Donation must be accepted in order for any of it to be used.
SM: Synopsys is comfortable with OVA being used as a resource, which can be
used in whole, in part, or not at all.
AS: If it is as a resource, and since we are already referring to it, why
not just vote now?
PN: Propose that we vote on the acceptance of OVA as a donation without
having to wait for a presentation.
RR: Second.
AK: Dissention - What is the value of accepting a donation without
understanding the unique features.
EM: Are they any constraints on what can be said/publicized about the
donation being accepted? Acceptance has marketing value to the donating
company. We have to be clear on what acceptance means and how that can be
promoted.
Opposed: CE, HF, JH, RH, AK, JL, EM, AS,
Abstain: Ambar
In Favor: TF, RA, GD, SD, SM, BT, PN, RR
Result: Does not pass
TCC criteria for donation acceptance:
1- Must be compatible with SystemVerilog
2- Must be supported by a commercially available tool
3- If any part of the donation is viewed as acceptable, then the donation
should be accepted.
RR: Is language style/appearance a valid criteria for accepting a donation?
TF: Yes, style/appearance is an extremely important part of language design.
SM: Even if OVA and PSL cover the same features, there could still be a
justification for accepting OVA.
There will be a presentation/discussion about OVA at the next meeting.
FH: Any objections to these proposed milestones:
Original Current
Requirements Approved 9/1 9/19
Donation vote on OVA NA 9/19
Review DAS 2.0 LRM from DWG 12/1 12/1
Prelim. DAS 2.0 LRM to SV 3/1 3/1
EM: As long as everyone understands that being schedule driven may mean that
some features don't get in, as opposed to being feature driven at the
possible expense of schedule.
AK: Can we have a discussion about what problems currently exist in SV3.0
assertions? Can this be put in as a milestone.
PN: This activity and others (PSL review, etc) can be done between the
donation vote and the review of the DAS2.0 LRM.
FH: That means that the SV-AC committee will continue to meet while the DWG
is working on the language development.
AK: Discussion doesn't need to be a milestone on the external schedule, but
the discussion should be scheduled internally.
EM: As we merge more capability in, there may be other problems that occur.
SD: If there are problems with SV3.0, then they need to be fixed in 2.0.
Next meeting: Thursday 9/19, 8am-10am PDT.
OVA Review 8-8:30
Requrirements review 8:30-10am
Dial-in to follow
Thanks,
-Tom
------------------------------------------------------
Tom Fitzpatrick
Sr. Manager, Product Technical Marketing
Synopsys, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------
Email: fitz@synopsys.com Mobile: (978)337-7641
Tel: (978)448-8797 Fax: (561)594-3946
------------------------------------------------------
SUPERLOG = Faster, Smarter Verilog
------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Sep 13 2002 - 07:22:15 PDT