Here are the unapproved meeting minutes from our 21 February 2006 meeting. Since these notes are being written while I am unconnected from the Internet, I have not posted some of the associated files yet. Once I do, I will update the links highlighted in red in the body of the meeting minutes. Also, please check the roster of participants since I took them from a poorly written piece of paper. I believe I have everyone, but I might have missed or included someone I should not have. -Dennis ________________________________ IEEE SystemVerilog Working Group UNAPPROVED MINUTES 21 February 2006 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. PST Teleconference 1. Call to order Chair Srouji called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. PST. The roster of attendees is follows. Those IEEE SA Corporate Members who participate in the meeting today are recognized as voting members. Key: DR= Designated Representative DRA= Designated Representative Alternate O=Observer S=Staff Present Entity Name Representative Name Representative Designation IEEE-SA Member Voting Member X Accellera Karen Pieper DR Yes Yes X Bluespec Rishyur Nikhil DR Yes Yes X Cadence Victor Berman DR Yes Yes X Charles Dawson DRA X IBM Johny Srouji DR Yes Yes X Intel Yossi Levy DR Yes Yes X Shalom Bresticker X Mentor Graphics Dennis Brophy DR Yes Yes Dave Rich DRA X Sun Neil Korpusik DR Yes Yes X Sunburst Design Cliff Cummings DR Yes Yes X Sutherland HDL Stu Sutherland DR Yes Yes X Synopsys Steve Smith DR Yes Yes X Fintronic USA Alec Stanculescu DR Yes Yes Staff 2. Approve agenda A motion (Karen Pieper, Victor Berman) was mad to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Call for Patents Chair Srouji read the required IEEE patent slides. Download Patent Slide set (PowerPoint) <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt> 4. Approval of 18 January 2006 meeting minutes A motion (Victor Berman, Stuart Sutherland) was made to approve the meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Action Items Review and Follow-up Chair Srouji reviewed the action items and updated their status. See (Link to eda.org to be furnished later.) 6. Quick review / refresh of the LRM priorities which were discussed on 18 January, 2006 Karen presented the findings of the technical teams per her the action request from the last meeting. From this, it was understood that 3 months of work by editorial would be needed and a 3 month overhead of the committee and technical team for a total of a 6 month amount of time. See (Link to eda.org to be furnished later.) In terms of open bugs to address by SV-BC, there are 150 issues from the SystemVerilog side and 243 from 1364 side. Stu gave a presentation on the merging of the two documents. He had requested John Cooley to get information back from ESNUG on the merging or non-merging of the documents. There were 95 respondents to his question and those came from about approximately 70 different companies. The presentation can be downloaded. (Link to eda.org to be furnished later.) 80% of the SV-BC says we should to the merge and from the outside 90% say we should do the merge. We may need a parallel path. If so, there will be a conflict of resources when the technical resources need to be brought to bear on the merge of the documents and technical issue resolution would be subordinate to them. Yossi altered his position. His merge concerns are: (1) The work of the technical editor must be given some deadlines to ensure this is their work focus and (2) Karen within 2 months, must say if she wants to use the merged version or go with the previous two versions. Should the errata fixes be based on the merged documents or should we use the un-merged version? After the editor has done the initial merging and the committee has had time to look at it. There should be a time to take a checkpoint. At the checkpoint, we need to determine if we are on track. If we are on schedule, we stay with the merged one. A motion (Stu Sutherland, Victor Berman) was made that the working group contract with an editor to merge the two documents into one as soon as possible. Motion passed unanimously. The cost and funding model proposals need to come back to the group. 7. Review survey results from technical committees and community Karen's review was reported in her prior report. A presentation from Stu was also reported out as well. 8. Update on Study Group & PAR Confirmation from Chuck Adams was given that a Study Group has been formed. 9. New business None. 10. Next meeting (announce date, time, and location, if known) 3 April 2006 8 - 10. Teleconference 11. Adjournment No further business before the working group, the meeting adjourned at 10:51 a.m. PST.Received on Fri Mar 10 14:04:03 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 10 2006 - 14:04:52 PST