Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] VHDL 200x meeting at DATE
From: Stephen Bailey (Stephen.Bailey@synopsys.com)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 09:01:12 PST
> So, do not expect
> many more subscriptions from DATE.
The scheduling was a bit unfortunate, but I have continued to see additional
subscriptions coming in.
> As the DATE meeting failed, you should allow more time to review the
> prioritization of actions. I think it could be the role of ECSI to provide the
> documents (i.e. the updated ppt presentation and the Excel file with
> priorities) to their members so they can react. Jean Mermet agreed and I sent
> the files to ECSI so they can post them in their web site and ask their
> members for feedback. This should be done by the end of this week. I'm also
> expecting to have these files, and other related VHDL-200x documents,
> available in the VASG web site.
Hopefully, "failed" is too strong a word. But, as the attendance was small, it
did fail in the area of getting significant feedback on priorities. ECSI has
already been helpful in publicizing the effort.
Thanks to you, Jean and Florence for letting us use ECSI as a forum to gather
and publicize this information.
> Now, I would have a few questions/comments on the VHDL-200x initiative.
> - Where is the list of requests actually coming from? What are the rationales
> behind them? This is important to define priorities properly.
> - What is the role of the "Miscellaneous" team? It seems to be a kind of
> catch-all, but I understood that no new requests will be accepted.
Jim Lewis provided an earlier reply which is accurate. I wish to emphasize the
point that it is not too late to submit additional requests. The preferred
submission process is via www.eda.org/vasg/bugrep.htm.
The Miscellaneous team is ISAC. They cannot be a catch-all for everything.
But, they could take some overflow issues that are relatively limited in scope
(language/LRM impact). The ISAC definitely needs to review all outstanding IRs
and provide a summary to the WG. This is an AI from the WG meeting last week.
> - I would stress that the validation process should carefully consider the
> implications of the changes to the 1076.1 standard.
The best way to do that is to have the 1076.1 experts reviewing all proposed
changes.
> - The 1076.1 WG may have some new requests to add. I would need some more time
> to discuss this in the WG.
We welcome input from 1076.1 (as we do for all 1076.x and 1164 WGs). If we need
to have a separate functional team to address any enhancements, I'm sure that is
possible as well. Of course, I would look for the 1076.1 experts to form the
core for that team. If the requests are few and easily fit into the scope of an
existing functional team, then we can handle that as well.
How soon can you let us know? (We are planning a 200x Steering Committee
meeting around the 14th-18th of Mar. I'll schedule it by the end of this week.)
Would you be able to provide some information at that time? If not, the SC will
be meeting every 2-3 weeks so we can schedule it for later.
> - The email discussion should be archived in the VASG web site in the same way
> we have in the 1076.1 WG.
I have not checked this, but it was my understanding that all eda.org email
lists are HyperMail archived. I'll need to check into this and add the
appropriate link from the VASG web page.
-Steve Bailey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 09:05:51 PST