RE: [P1800] SV-Top-25 Considerations

Hi, Brad -

Agreed. 2012 should be the deadline.

The proposal requires two levels of approval to step outside of the
top-25; a rather high threshold, but one that does allow flexibility
if it is warranted. The proposal also limits debate in that such
proposals would only be considered in the final 10 minutes of any
meeting unless approved by the two bodies.

I always support a date-deadline to a feature-deadline, since the
features could be added into a future version.

Regards - Cliff

At 03:20 PM 5/12/2010, Brad Pierce wrote:
>Cliff,
>
>The central constraint should be the 2012 deadline. Prioritization
>means saying 'no' to nice-to-haves.
>
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter's_law>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter's_law
>
>-- Brad
>
>
>From: owner-ieee1800@eda.org [mailto:owner-ieee1800@eda.org] On
>Behalf Of Clifford E. Cummings
>Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:11 PM
>To: IEEE P1800 Working Group
>Subject: [P1800] SV-Top-25 Considerations
>
>Hi, All -
>
>At the P1800 Study Group Meeting this Thursday, presentations will
>be made by each SV-subcommittee outlining the top-25 enhancements
>that will be considered for the next version of the standard.
>
>The subcommittees seem to diverge on what can and cannot be
>considered outside of the top-25. The BC has suggested that the
>top-25 will be the sole agenda for the subcommittee. The EC has
>suggested that the 10 next top voted proposals should also be
>considered, time permitting.
>
>Could I suggest that the voting entities consider the following proposal?
>
>The top-25 are the priority for each subcommittee.
>Other proposals shall only be considered if:
>(1) the subcommittee votes to approve consideration of
>proposals (by majority of eligible voting members), and then
>(2) the P1800 votes to allow the subcommittee to consider the
>approved proposals (entity voting).
>
>To avoid tying up subcommittee time with additional proposals,
>proposals shall only be entertained:
>(1) if the proposal has been submitted as a Mantis item, and
>(2) the submitter is able to find three subcommittee members
>who agree that the proposal is ready and worthy to be discussed by
>the subcommittee, and
>(3) new proposals must be on the agenda (FIFO order) and shall
>only be considered during the last 10 minutes of each subcommittee
>meeting, then
>(4) the subcommittee can (a) accept and submit to the P1800, or
>(b) reject, or (c) ask the submitter to clarify and discuss at a
>future subcommittee meeting (to be scheduled during the last 10
>minutes of the future meeting).
>
>I can understand the desire to focus our efforts on prioritized
>requests, but I consider it a dangerous precedent to eliminate
>consideration of additional active proposals or future submissions
>at the beginning of the PAR process.
>
>I cannot legally submit this proposal to the P1800 committee, so I
>submit it for consideration and ask that the issue be taken up by
>voting members.
>
>Regards - Cliff

----------------------------------------------------
Cliff Cummings - Sunburst Design, Inc.
14355 SW Allen Blvd., Suite #100, Beaverton, OR 97005
Phone: 503-641-8446 / FAX: 503-641-8486
cliffc@sunburst-design.com / www.sunburst-design.com
World Class Verilog & SystemVerilog Training

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