Subject: [vhdl-200x] Results of PSL Advisory Vote
From: Bailey, Stephen (SBailey@model.com)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 08:16:19 PDT
As required by DASC and WG policy, only votes from DASC and WG members are counted. Furthermore, only votes that were received prior to the suspense date are honored. The original call for advisory vote is attached and clearly states the suspense as Friday, 12 Sep 2003, 0900 EDT.
Please note that DASC membership and the subscriber list for vhdl-200x combined with a record of WG participation -- primarily measured by participating in WG votes, see below -- are the only measures of WG membership.
The advisory vote passes with the votes recorded as follows:
Yeas: 8
Gabe Moretti
John Willis
Jim Lewis
J. Bhasker
John Shields
Chuck Swart
Robert Myers
E.M. Lavelle
(as is customary, the chair did not vote but would have voted Yea)
Neas: 0
Votes received from non-DASC members:
(Please see http://www.dasc.org/DASC-roster.html; a membership application is at http://www.dasc.org)
Ben Cohen
Jay Lawrence
Richard Wallace
James Goeke
Alex Zamfirescu
Votes received past the suspense (all are also, or were not at the time of the vote, WG members):
Tom Fitzpatrick
Mark Hartoog
Gorgon Vreugdenhil
Karen Bartleson
Keith Gover
Rich Goldman
Jayant Nagda
Karen Pieper
Stephen Meier
Brad Pierce
Mehdi Mohtashemi
It is worth noting that even if all of the disallowed votes were counted, the advisory vote would have still passed, albeit by a smaller margin.
I would also like to point out that there was a coordinated effort by employees of Synopsys to defeat the advisory vote. As all of the votes from these people have been disallowed as they came after the suspense, they did not impact the result. I want to make absolutely clear that this Chair will not allow the WG to be hijacked or derailed by such attempts. The IEEE and DASC provide adequate safeguards to prevent or disqualify this type of behavior. The first of which is that the WG must maintain a relative balance between users, producers, academics and general interest categories. The second of which is that the WG can collate a block of coordinated votes from an organization that are essentially identical into a single vote. Votes which are submitted as an organization cannot hide behind the presumption of individual participation that the IEEE and this WG otherwise presume. The third tool at the disposal of WG chairs is to disqualify votes if the rationale given is out of scope. Due to the nature
of this tool, I personally will try to avoid using it in any but the most egregious circumstances.
Of course, the WG Chair must validate the membership for all votes to be recorded. I will also be measuring the participation of WG members as that is a criteria. Participation is measured in terms of participating in WG votes (see email documenting membership qualifications http://www.eda-twiki.org/vhdl-200x/hm/0051.html). Since only 8 people on the WG reflector voted, the rest of the membership needs to be sure to submit a vote on the next WG vote or they will be dropped from membership (subject to reinstatement rules outlined in the referenced email) -- but not vhdl-200x subscription .
One more comment about the Synopsys coordinated attempt to defeat the vote: The issue of PSL being subject to change is a valid issue that the WG and assertions team needs to be aware. However, a good faith effort to share this information with the WG would have involved one or two emails on the subject. Receiving 10 virtually identical emails all from employees of the same company, the CEO of which stated earlier this year that the company would not significantly invest in VHDL, none of whom had subscribed to the vhdl-200x reflector and none of whom had previously taken any active participation in any of the VHDL-200x functional teams CAN ONLY BE SEEN AS A BAD FAITH ATTEMPT TO DELAY OR DEFEAT THE EFFORTS OF THIS WORKING GROUP!
The WG welcomes any changes at Synopsys that would lead to good faith, active participation in this working group. However, as long as the behavior of representatives of Synopsys continue to reinforce the view publicly stated by the CEO at DVCon 2003, it is fair to assume that such behavior will be seen by other members of this WG as unlikely to be in the best interests of this WG and VHDL.
That said, I know there are individuals at Synopsys that, if they choose to participate, would do so in good faith. Such participation is always welcome.
------------
Stephen Bailey
TME, Mentor Graphic's Model Technology Group
sbailey@model.com
303-775-1655 (mobile, preferred)
720-494-1202 (office)
www.model.com
<<[vhdl-200x] Call for Advisory Vote: Simple Subset of PSL>>
attached mail follows:
The assertions team has decided to pursue the incorporation and integration of the simple subset of PSL as the best way to enhance the assert statement into a broader assertion-based verification capability. The simple subset limits the properties that can be expressed to only those in which time moves monotonically forward (which is the only way simulators know how to deal with time).
Because we do not yet have a detailed proposal on the specifics of the PSL incorporation and integration, this Call for Vote is NOT a final CfV. Instead, it is best viewed as an advisory vote; the purpose of which is to provide some assurance to the assertions team that they won't be wasting their time in pursuing PSL as the basis for the detailed proposal. (By assurance, I mean that we won't later find out that a majority or very significant minority would never vote to approve the detailed proposal due solely to the fact that the proposal is based on PSL.)
Also, from a practical perspective, I am in the process of submitting 3 different papers for possible publication and presentation at conferences and EE Times. These papers will all reference the fact that PSL has been chosen as the basis for VHDL's ABV capabilities. While I don't anticipate a negative response to this advisory vote, I would rather have the vote than be made a fool (and waste alot of people's time over the next several months)!
As the papers are in process of review and this is an advisory vote, I require a quick turnaround on this vote:
Friday, 12 Sep 03, 0900 EDT.
The question to be voted on:
Should the assertions team continue constructing a detailed language change proposal based on incorporating and integrating PSL into VHDL?
Yes replies require no comments. However, I request any no responses to provide rationale for the no comment. Replies can be sent to me (mailto:sbailey@model.com) or to the email reflector (mailto:vhdl-200x@eda.org).
DASC WG voting rules apply. You must be a DASC member. To confirm your membership in DASC, see http://www.dasc.org/DASC-roster.html. The DASC home page has a link to the membership application.
Thank you for your prompt consideration.
------------
Stephen Bailey
TME, Mentor Graphic's Model Technology Group
sbailey@model.com
303-775-1655 (mobile, preferred)
720-494-1202 (office)
www.model.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 08:21:56 PDT