RE: [sv-ac] call for vote on 1601

So, my first reason is not valid anymore, but the others remain.

Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:21 PM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; Korchemny, Dmitry; john.havlicek@freescale.com
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call for vote on 1601

Yes, this is it.
ed 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:47 AM
> To: Korchemny, Dmitry; john.havlicek@freescale.com
> Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call for vote on 1601
> 
> Dmitry,
> 
> I think that when the P1800 WG approves the issue, Karen moves it to
> SV-LRM category with Resolution = Reopened, which simply means that it
> is waiting for action/implementation by the editor. The issue remains
> approved.
> 
> Regards,
> Shalom
> 
> > I have no idea, but in Mantis the resolution "reopened". I see that
> the
> > category is SV-LRM, therefore it happened at the stage of 
> addition to
> > LRM.
> > 
> > I was not aware that 0928 had been reopened.  The database
> > shows that the proposal was unanimously accepted by email vote
> > on 2006-07-11 and approved by P1800 on 2007-09-21.
> > 
> > > 1. Since the status of Mantis 928 is reopened, the changes in the
> > > current proposal should not be relative to Mantis 928, but to the
> > > existing LRM.
> 
> -- 
> 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.