Re: [sv-ac] SV-AC: "Which" for "tha"t editing changes

Hi Dmitry,

The sv-ac is allowed to meet to address Editorial changes. Make sure that
you don't go beyond changes that are Editorial in nature.

The schedule calls for completion of the pre-ballot draft review on Jan
24.
That is a hard deadline. The Editor has only a few days to then
turn-around any required changes. You should not be considering large
sets of changes at this
point in the process, since the schedule doesn't allow for that.

Neil

On 01/08/12 00:20, Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Is SV-AC allowed to meet to approve these changes?
>
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart Sutherland [mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 21:50
> To: 'Neil Korpusik'; ben@systemverilog.us
> Cc: 'ben cohen'; Korchemny, Dmitry; Bresticker, Shalom; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] SV-AC: "Which" for "tha"t editing changes
>
> Thank you for saying this, Neil. That backs up my initial response on this thread. These are editorial corrections, but have the potential of inadvertently altering the intent of the LRM. Hence the line-in-the-sand that I initially drew of requiring committee approval for making each change, no matter how trivial or obvious the change might seem.
>
> Because these are editorial corrections and are not adding to or changing the standard, I am OK with making these corrections in the next draft. But I do want committee consensus on each change.
>
> Stu
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Stuart Sutherland
> Sutherland HDL, Inc.
> stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
> 503-692-0898
> www.sutherland-hdl.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Neil Korpusik
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:20 AM
> To: ben@systemverilog.us
> Cc: ben cohen; Korchemny, Dmitry; Bresticker, Shalom; sv-ac@eda-stds.org; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] SV-AC: "Which" for "tha"t editing changes
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> > I agree that they should be carefully reviewed. For section 16 and 17, there> are 13 simple changes that I identified. The review process and voting can> be done over email.
>
> At this point in time the Editor is allowed to make purely Editorial changes.
> It is up to the Editor to determine if he is comfortable making those changes on his own, without technical committee approval.
>
> What you are referring to as "simple changes" to clauses 16 and 17 has caused at least one person to disagree with a few of the suggested changes.
> It appears that those changes aren't as simple as you suggest.
>
> Mantis 4002 has been moved back to the new state.
>
> My recommendation to the Editor is that he not make any of the changes suggested in the proposal for mantis 4002 without approval from the SV-AC Technical Committee.
>
>
> Neil
>
>
>
> On 01/05/12 05:07, ben cohen wrote:
>> I agree that they should be carefully reviewed. For section 16 and
>> 17, there are 13 simple changes that I identified. The review process
>> and voting can be done over email.
>> Ben
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Korchemny, Dmitry
>> <dmitry.korchemny@intel.com<mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Neil,
>>
>> But these are massive changes, I think they should be carefully
>> reviewed.
>>
>> Dmitry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Neil Korpusik [mailto:neil.korpusik@oracle.com
>> <mailto:neil.korpusik@oracle.com>]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 03:06
>> To: ben@systemverilog.us<mailto:ben@systemverilog.us>
>> Cc: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
>> <mailto:sv-ac@eda-stds.org>; Korchemny, Dmitry;
>> stuart@sutherland-hdl.com<mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com>
>> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] SV-AC: "Which" for "tha"t editing changes
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> There isn't a defined process for finding such problems.
>> We simply fix these types of things when we find them.
>>
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/04/12 12:36, ben cohen wrote:
>> > I filed http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=4002
>> > Shalom, what is the process to have all the committees review their
>> > sections for such errors.
>> > It would be best have a professional IEEE document with good
> grammar.
>> >
>> > Summary 0004002: "Which" for "tha"t editing changes for AL
>> OF LRM
>> > Description The LRM has several grammatical errors, with the most
>> > striking one being the misuse of the pronouns "which" and "that"
>> > Attached is mantis for recommended editing changes for sections
>> 16 and 17.
>> >
>> > *However, ALL of the LRM needs to be reviewed, and each responsible
>> > committee should review their sections for proper
>> > grammar.*
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>>
>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.