-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Champions June 5, 2008 Conference call Thursday 8-10am PDT Attendees: ---------- 1. - Stu Sutherland 2. - Surrendra Dudani 3. * Brad Pierce 4. * Francoise Martinolle 5. * Shalom Bresticker 6. * John Havlicek 7. * Dave Rich 8. * Neil Korpusik 9. - Karen Pieper 1. Review IEEE patent policy ref: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt Move: Brad - assume that the patent policy was read Second: John Passed unanimously 2. List of Mantis items for review 2.1 2399 SV-BC Corrections to 0001619 - fixed - On June 2, 2008 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal. - For 1619, a down-level version of the proposal was accidentally approved; 2399 contains what was missing from 1619 Move: Brad - approve the proposal for Mantis item 2399 Second: John Passed unanimously 2.2 2374 SV-BC 7.4.1: Allow packed arrays of enum - fixed - On June 2, 2008, the SV-BC unanimously approved 2374_D5_packed_enum_arrays_v3.htm as the resolution to this issue. Move: Brad - approve the proposal for Mantis item 2374 Second: Shalom Passed unanimously 2.3 2237 SV-AC VPI additions for 1667 - fixed - SV-AC 2008-04-08: Passed by voice vote 9y/0n/0a. - The SV-CC reviewed the subsequent changes to the proposal since our last review and on 04/09/2008 we PASSED it again (unanimous). - The proposal was deferred by the Champions in the April 24th, 2008 conference call until 1503 is completed. - Mantis 1503 is now in the resolved state. Move: Shalom - approve the proposal for Mantis item 2237 Second: Brad Passed unanimously 2.4 2008 SV-BC Glitch problem in unique/priority if/case - fixed - Approved by the Champions in April 10 conference call (1 opposed) - Editor requested a better note. - When updating the proposal another set of changes were made - On May 12, 2008 the SV-BC approved the latest proposal draft (2008_D5_deglitch_if_case.V3.htm). The vote was not unanimous: Opposed: Stu (ambiguous severity level will lead to implementation differences that will be problematic for users) Abstain: Heath (agrees with Stu but no enough to oppose) - Clarification from Shalom. 06/04/08 The original proposal was based on Draft 4 and was the last in a series of Manti on the same sections of the LRM, each building on the changes done by the preceding ones. The other Manti entered into Draft 5, but not 2008. As a result, the 2008 proposal was rewritten using Draft 5 as a clean base document. A few additional editorial corrections were noticed and entered, but no technical changes from the previous proposal were made. John - likes the proposal. It is similar to the approach used in deferred assertions. - isn't aware of the issue with severity Brad - Stu wants to see an error Shalom - The proposal doesn't specify if it is a warning or an error. - Some committee members preferred a warning, others prefer an error - The proposal was purposely left vague on this point. - Trying to nail it down precisely could have involved a fair amount of complications. There would be questions about fatal versus non-fatal error versus warning. Stu wanted a non-fatal error. Move: John - approve the proposal for Mantis item 2008 Second: Shalom Passed unanimously 2.5 1742 SV-EC Example added by 1330 needs an explanation - duplicate - The Editor flagged as a duplicate of 2234 - SV-EC Approved on May 12 2008, unanimously. Move: Shalom - approve the resolution of duplicate for Mantis item 1742 Second: Brad Passed unanimously 2.6 1503 SV-AC 27.33 VPI diagram of propertyinst has no vpiArgument - fixed - SV-AC requested that the champions send back to the sv-ac - SV-AC has updated the proposal - Passed by voice vote 2008-04-29: 7y/0n/0a Move: Brad - approve the proposal for Mantis item 1503 Second: Dave Passed unanimously 3. Next meeting July 10, 2008 8am-10am PDTReceived on Sat Jun 14 09:30:28 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 14 2008 - 09:30:30 PDT