Date: Mon Jun 25 2012 - 08:55:01 PDT
My understanding was that procedure required a week, unless there was specific agreement to a shorter time, which would have had to happen at a meeting. I could be incorrect about this, but it was the impression that I got at the last meeting.
If my understanding is correct, then this ballot did not follow agreed procedure.
From: owner-sv-xc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:51 AM
To: Steven Sharp; sv-xc@eda.org
Subject: RE: Result of email ballot due June 25th
Steven,
The ballot has closed and I believe you had a reasonable amount of time to vote no on these proposals before it closed.
These votes are non-binding and you may bring it up with the Working Group through your Designated Representative when it comes to a vote there.
Regarding your latest comment about 4126, the WG has already made a determination that enhancement requests are not out of scope in approving ballot comments as long as they fit within the scope of the original PAR.
Dave
Mentor Graphics
From: owner-sv-xc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Steven Sharp
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 8:28 AM
To: Rich, Dave; sv-xc@eda.org
Subject: RE: Result of email ballot due June 25th
This ballot went out on the 20th. When did we agree on less than a week for this email ballot?
From: owner-sv-xc@eda.org<mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org> [mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-sv-xc@eda.org]> On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:17 AM
To: sv-xc@eda.org<mailto:sv-xc@eda.org>
Subject: Result of email ballot due June 25th
4145 Yes (with update from BP addressing one comment from SB)
4129 No (updated proposal, let's vote on today)
4127 NO
BP Because too much discussion in the Mantis comments after proposal to consider this resolved.
4126 YES
3982 YES
3940 NO
BP:Because I'd like confirmed that "regardless of whether method triggered or method matched is applied to the instance of the sequence" needn't mention "property", because "across an instance of a property or a sequence" should be "across an instance of a sequence or property" for parallel construction with "a sequence or property" in the following sentence, and because the section number is out-of-date with draft 5. 16.13.3 is the sub-clause being modified.
MH- I think the wording is confusing. The methods triggered and matched only apply to sequences as far as I know, but the wording confuses that.
FM- - no I do not understand neither recognizes "the scope flows left to right" or ("does not flow out"
being used elsewhere
in the LRM as a typical way to describe the scope of an declaration.
3525 NO
BP Because I'd like to know how many existing designs would be broken by the backward incompatibility
2840 YES
Dave Rich
Verification Technologist
Mentor Graphics Corporation
[cid:image001.png@01CD52C9.59D248F0]<http://www.twitter.com/dave_59>[cid:image002.png@01CD52C9.59D248F0]<http://go.mentor.com/drich>
