RE: [sv-champions] Email vote ending October 2

Neil,

I was able to review most of the proposals.

I approve all except for 2093 and 3213, which I object to not being given a reasonable amount of time to review.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-champions@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-champions@eda.org] On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 7:04 PM
To: <neil.korpusik@oracle.com>
Cc: sv-champions@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-champions] Email vote ending October 2

Neil,

I object to all proposals. 1 week is not enough time to review, plus I was out of the country. It was also a holiday week for others.

-Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 1, 2011, at 6:58 PM, "Neil Korpusik" <neil.korpusik@oracle.com> wrote:

> Reminder, tomorrow is the last day for this email vote.
>
>
> Neil
>
>
>
>
> On 09/24/11 20:17, Neil Korpusik wrote:
>> P1800 Champions,
>> We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the
>> resolved state. There are 9 mantis items ready for the Champions. I
>> have put all of them into this email vote. There are still some from
>> the last email vote which some Champions requested additional time to
>> review. I did not include those in this email vote. Those will come
>> up for a vote again in the next email vote.
>> Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose,
>> please specify a reason. You have until October 2, midnight (PST) to
>> cast your votes.
>> We are getting to the end of the timeline for this PAR, so the votes
>> are coming closer together.
>> Neil
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> P1800 Champions,
>> We are conducting an email vote for mantis items that are in the resolved state. There are 9 mantis items ready for the Champions. I have put all of them into this email vote. There are still some from the last email vote which some Champions requested additional time to review. I did not include those in this email vote. Those will come up for a vote again in the next email vote.
>> Mark your votes as being either Approve or Oppose. If you Oppose, please specify a reason. You have until October 2, midnight (PST) to cast your votes.
>> We are getting to the end of the timeline for this PAR, so the votes are coming closer together.
>> Neil
>> 1. 1356 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=1356> SV-EC Multiple
>> inheritance
>> There is a proposal (11 pages)
>> Unanimously approved in sv-ec September 12 2011 meeting.
>> 1356_Interface_Classes_rev12.pdf
>> Approve _X_ Oppose __
>> 2. 2081 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2081> SV-BC Not clear
>> enough which kinds of statements are prohibited in always_comb
>> There is a proposal (1 page)
>> On September 12, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached
>> proposal.
>> Approve __ Oppose __
>> 3. 2547 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2547> SV-AC local
>> variable read before write
>> No change required
>> Passed by voice vote 2011-08-16: 9y/0n/0a.
>> Approve __ Oppose __
>> 4. 3015 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3015> SV-AC Examples of
>> $fatal have bad arguments
>> There is a proposal (1 page)
>> The amended proposal passed by voice vote 2011-08-18: 9y/0n/0a.
>> Approve __ Oppose __
>> 5. 3202 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3202> SV-AC Clarify on
>> whether certain system functions are allowed in classes, 'let',
>> and other corner cases
>> Duplicate of 2476
>> Approved by voice vote 2011-08-02: 7y/0n/0a.
>> Approve __ Oppose __
>> 6. 3213 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3213> SV-AC Update
>> definition of sampled value
>> There is a proposal (11 pages)
>> Amended proposal passed by email vote 2011-08-01: 8y/0n/0a.
>> Approve __ Oppose __
>> 7. 3326 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=3326> SV-BC LRM in BNF
>> allows parameters declaration under generate, while in generate
>> chapter it is forbidden
>> There is a proposal (a 2-line change)
>> On July 18, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached
>> proposal.
>> Approve __ Oppose __
>> 8. 2289 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2289> SV-BC 6.20.1
>> should say that generate block and compilation unit-scope
>> parameters are local
>> There is a proposal (a 2-line change)
>> On July 18, 2011 the SV-BC unanimously approved the attached
>> proposal.
>> Approve __ Oppose __
>> 9. 2093 <http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=2093> SV-AC Checker
>> construct should permit output arguments
>> There is a proposal (6 pages)
>> Approved by voice vote 2011-09-20: 10y/0n/0a.
>> Approve __ Oppose __
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>

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