RE: [sv-champions] Ballot review process

Bounced mail from Dave Rich:


>Karen,
>
>In what form with the feedback from the ballot come to the champions?
>Will it already be entered in a database created from the ballot
>process?
>
>Given that the committees have been discouraged to discuss any issues
>during the ballot (even though a few issues have leaked out), plus
>having some idea of the comments Mentor Graphics plans to submit, I
>think the two week period for the committees to deal with all issues
>raised is unreasonable. Two months would be more realistic.
>
>Dave
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org]
>On
>> Behalf Of Karen Pieper
>> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 10:10 AM
>> To: sv-champions@eda.org
>> Subject: [sv-champions] Ballot review process
>> 
>> Hi, Champions,
>> 
>>       As Champions, a significant role has been given to you in the
>> balloting review process.  The P1800 WG recommends some face-to-face
>> meetings in the schedule below.  I'd like to hear everyone's opinions
>as
>> to how long a meeting we think we'll need to start the process of
>> reviewing balloting feedback.  Note that I've already seen some
>> significant commentary that is being forwarded to the registered
>voters.
>> 
>> Note that I have yet to receive any official feedback.  Would we like
>to
>> plan to meet in case some comes in before the end of the balloting?
>> 
>> The schedule:
>> 
>> February 22:  The balloting process opens.  As feedback is filed with
>> the IEEE, it will be forwarded
>>       to Johny, and he is likely to forward it on to me and the
>Champions
>> for preliminary processing
>>       into buckets (see March 28 below).
>> 
>> March 24:     The ballot closes.
>> 
>> March 28:     P1800 will receive the accumulated feedback filed with
>the
>> balloting.
>>       This feedback will be given to the Champions to sort into
>several
>> buckets:
>> 
>>       1)  Issues that may require substantive changes to the LRM are
>> forwarded to the SV-* committees
>>       2)  Issues that are editorial changes will be forwarded to Stu
>>       3)  Issues that are "not a bug" are commented on appropriately
>and
>> passed back to the P1800
>> 
>>       The P1800 recommends that the champions have a face-to-face all
>day
>> meeting to complete
>>       this process.
>> 
>> March 31:  The Champions are complete with their initial
>classification
>> and assignment of issues to
>>       committees.
>> 
>>       The P1800 recommends that the SV-* committees plan an all day
>face-
>> to-face to deal with the
>>       issues raised.  Possible resolutions are:
>> 
>>       1)  Changes are made to the LRM to address the issue
>>       2)  Addressing the issue is determined to decrease consensus in
>the
>> committee is so noted on
>>               the issues spreadsheet.
>>       3)  Other determination of the issue is made and is also so
>noted in
>> the issues spreadsheet
>>               Note:  Saying that an issue will be delayed to a future
>> release is not an allowed response.
>> 
>> April 12:  The committees are complete with their LRM updates and
>issue
>> spreadsheet updates.
>> 
>>       The Champions will meet, do their review of LRM changes looking
>for
>> inconsistency, etc.
>>       This is likely to be a phone meeting.
>> 
>> April 15:  The Champions have completed their analysis and the data is
>> forwarded to the P1800.
>> 
>> April 19:  The P1800 has a WG meeting in Austin to approve the changes
>and
>> responses.
>> 
>> May 3:  The updated draft is ready for editorial review of the changes
>> 
>> May 9:  The re-ballot draft is complete
>> 
>> May 10:  Voting on the re-ballot draft starts.
>> 
>> I'd appreciate your insights into how best accomplish the Champions
>piece
>> to this process.
>> 
>> Karen