RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending December 13th

My votes are:

2839 Errata SV-AC Contradictory statement of increment/decrement operators usage.
There is a proposal. A one line change.
Was up for a vote in the Champions (10/3/10).
The Champion's feedback was addressed.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

2291 Errata SV-AC the description of $assertoff blurs assertions and attempts
There is a proposal.
The committee has addressed the Champion's friendly ammendments.
No further action is required by the Champions.

2722 Errata SV-AC Errors in Figures 16-14, 16-15, and 16-16
There is a proposal.
The committee has addressed the Champion's friendly ammendments.
No further action is required by the Champions.

3168 Errata SV-AC expression1 is not an argument to $past
Duplicate of 3008
Approve X__ Oppose __

2252 Errata SV-AC Several symbols in Annex F are in green
No change required
This mantis item mentions a problem where some text is in green.
The green text showed up in 1800-2009 draft 5.
The problem was corrected in draft 6.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

2948 Errata SV-BC Wrong example in protected envelope
There is a proposal. "data_block" was shown in the wrong location.
On November 8, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

1933 Errata SV-AC 16.13.6 reference to triggered method can be improved
No change required.
The champions feedback has been addressed.
Passed by voice vote 2010-06-01 9y/0a/0n.
Approve __ Oppose _X_
The reference to section 9.4.3 should be changed to 9.4.4

2107 Errata SV-BC Clarifications needed for scope operator
No change required
On November 8, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved resolution of this issue as addressed in 1800-2009.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

2206 Enhancement SV-AC Random simulation of non-deterministic free variables in checkers
No change required.
Was already reviewed by the Champions (was miscategorized as "duplicate" at that time).
Passed by voice vote 2010-11-09: 13y/0n/0a.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

3231 Errata SV-BC Functions can contain the fork statement
There is a proposal. A small one-line clarification.
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

3210 Errata SV-BC Declarations of port_identifiers in explicit non-ANSI port declarations
No change required.
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously agreed that this is not a bug and no change is required.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

3137 Errata SV-BC wrong reference in "Port connection rules for variables"
No change required.
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously agreed that this is not a mistake and no change is required.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

3080 Clarification SV-BC When reporting an escaped identifier, should .name() add a leading backslash?
Duplicate of 2678
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved as a duplicate of 2678.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

1133 Enhancement SV-BC allow reverse part-select [lsb:msb]
No change required.
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved to resolve this issue with no change as it is addressed by the streaming operator.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

3225 Errata SV-BC Footnote 18 is wrong, too restrictive
There is a proposal. Clarifies one paragraph in Annex A (footnote 18).
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

1170 Clarification SV-BC nonport declarations for identifiers mentioned in list_of_port_declarations
There is a proposal. A short clarification on port declarations.
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

1627 Errata SV-AC 17.16: clarify that expect statement not allowed in functions
There is a proposal. A short clarification on 'expect'.
Passed by email ballot 2010-07-12: 9y/0n/0a.
On October 25, 2010 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached proposal.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

2412 Enhancement SV-AC Allow clock inference in sequences
There is a proposal. This is a fairly long proposal.
This was previously rejected by the Champions.
The Champions feedback has been incorporated.
Approved by email ballot 2010-10-01: 9y/0n/0a.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

3135 Clarification SV-AC Verbal explanation of nexttime and always is misleading for multiple clocks.
There is a proposal. Two new paragraphs are being added.
Approved by email ballot 2010-10-01: 9y/0n/0a.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

2904 Clarification SV-AC Clarify when disable iff condition must occur relative to starting and ending of an attempt
There is a proposal. A one-line clarification.
Approved by email ballot 2010-10-01: 9y/0n/0a.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

2938 Clarification SV-AC Surprising (to some users) interaction between deferred assertions & short-circuiting
There is a proposal. Adding an additional example and explanation.
This was previously rejected by the Champions.
The proposal was updated to address Champions feedback, and the updated proposal was approved by the SV-AC by voice vote on 10/26/2010: 6y, 0n 0a
Approve _X_ Oppose __

2205 Clarification SV-AC $asseroff, $assertkill and $asserton description is ambiguous
There is a proposal. It is now very small.
The proposal was previously rejected by the Champions.
The mantis item was updated to address Champions feedback, and the new proposal was approved by the SV-AC by voice vote on 12/26/2010: 7y, 0n, 0a
Approve _X_ Oppose __

2485 Errata SV-AC minor terminology related to immediate and deferred assertions
There is a proposal.
The committee has addressed the Champion's friendly ammendments.
No further action is required by the Champions.

1763 Clarification SV-AC The LRM does not define whether assertion control tasks affect sequence methods and events
No change required.
Was previously rejected by the Champions. The submitter has added a note as to why no change is required.
The SV-AC voted on 2010-10-19 to again resolve this issue as "no change required": Voice vote, 7y/0n/0a
Approve _X_ Oppose __

2353 Errata SV-AC 'classes' missing from description
There is a proposal.
This was already approved by the Champions with a friendly ammendment.
The SV-AC approved the new version of the proposal addressing the Champions friendly amendment by voice vote on 2010-10-19: 7y/0n/0a
No further action is required by the Champions.

2034 Errata SV-CC sv_vpi_user.h lacks vpiChandleVar and vpiChandleTypespec
No change required.
On Jun-09-2010, the SV-CC declared this as 'No change required'. (unanimous)
Approve _X_ Oppose __

1581 Errata SV-CC Immediate assertion VPI diagram needs a special section
No change required.
On Jun-09-2010, the SV-CC declared this as 'No change required'. (unanimous)
Approve _X_ Oppose __

1652 Errata SV-CC Which VPI class defn does a data member class var refer to?
Duplicate
On Jun-09-2010, the SV-CC declared this a duplicate of Item 2094. (unanimous)
Approve _X_ Oppose __

744 Clarification SV-CC Does vpiMethods iteration include built-in functions and tasks?
Duplicate
On Jun-09-2010, the SV-CC declared this a duplicate of Item 2094. (unanimous)
Approve _X_ Oppose __

3116 Errata SV-CC No method/transition path to get to typespecs of named events or named event arrays
There is a proposal. Adding a bubble to two diagrams.
On Sep-15-2010, the SV-CC PASSED the proposed solution (unanimous)
Approve _X_ Oppose __

3188 Enhancement SV-CC No way to distinguish join, join_none, and join_any for fork-join blocks in VPI
There is a proposal. Small changes in a few places.
On Sep-15-2010, the SV-CC PASSED the proposed solution (unanimous)
Approve _X_ Oppose __

3193 Errata SV-CC Need defined value for built-in class type process-class for vpiClassType property.
There is a proposal. Adds one #define.
On Sep-15-2010, the SV-CC PASSED the proposed solution (by consent)
Approve _X_ Oppose __

1477 Errata SV-CC virtual interfaces information model
There is a proposal. Lots of changes (20 pages).
On Sep-15-2010, the SV-CC PASSED the proposed solution (Bassam abstained - was still concerned about backward compatibility issues).
Approve _X_ Oppose __

1434 Errata SV-CC Which kind of fork join is not available in VPI (27.9)
Duplicate of 3188.
On Sep-15-2010, the SV-CC voted to declare this a duplicate of Item 3188. (unanimous)
Approve _X_ Oppose __

3134 Errata SV-AC sequence and property range parameters are erroneously defined
There is a proposal. Adding a couple of new paragraphs.
Approved by email vote 2010-10-04: 10y/0n/0a.
Approve _X_ Oppose __

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