RE: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR

Folks,

Further to my previous message, I move the following:

  That the VASG approve the attached revision PAR for IEEE Std 1076 with
  the following changes:

    Item 11: Change to "Entity".

    Item 13: Change "1164 and 1076.2" to "1164, 1076.2 and 1076.3".

Cheers,

PA
(as a VASG member)

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
PO Box 640                                   Ph:  +61 8 8339 7532
Stirling, SA 5152                            Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
Australia                                    Mobile: +61 414 70 9106
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Peter Ashenden
> Sent: Friday, 18 June 2004 22:28
> To: 'Bailey, Stephen'; vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR
> 
> 
> Steve and colleagues,
> 
> Thanks to Steve for preparing the draft PAR.  I echo Edward's 
> reservations about mixed individual/entity balloting.  
> Providing entity voting as a form of recognition of support 
> doesn't really give any benefit to entities. Compare that 
> with entity-only balloting, where entities are on the 
> proverbial level playing field.  I think that is perceived as 
> being of higher value to entities, and would be more likely 
> to attract funding.
> 
> An important point to note is that if the ballot group and WG 
> are entity-based, the WG can still determine separate voting 
> rules for subgroups, such as technical teams.  Those subgroup 
> rules can admit of individual voting.  This might be a way of 
> satisfying people's concerns about disenfranchisement of 
> individuals in the technical work.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> PA
> (as a VASG member)
> 
> --
> Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
> Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
> PO Box 640                                   Ph:  +61 8 8339 7532
> Stirling, SA 5152                            Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
> Australia                                    Mobile: +61 414 70 9106
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org
> > [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bailey, Stephen
> > Sent: Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:05
> > To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> > Subject: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR
> > 
> > 
> > Attached is a draft of the PAR.  Peter Ashenden (DASC Chair)
> > has already performed one review cycle and the attached 
> > includes comments from his review.
> > 
> > Note that I'm suggesting that we allow both individual expert
> > and organization entity membership for the working group.  
> > The membership of the WG needs to be discussed.  But, here's 
> > my thinking as well as an observation from Edward Rashba of 
> > iEEE SA on the options here:
> > 
> > 1.  We need to find financial support for the VHDL-200x work.
> >  Primarily the funds are needed for the focussed effort of 
> > editing the VHDL LRM.  I have received estimates for the 
> > costs of this work of ~$200k over the course of 2-3 years 
> > (two revisions of VHDL under VHDL-200x).
> > 
> > 2.  I have been informed that Accellera has spent at least
> > $150k to get the SystemVerilog 3.1a LRM to its current state 
> > with possibility that a bit more funding will be needed to 
> > complete the IEEE standardization process.  Therefore, the 
> > estimates for VHDL are within the general ballpark given the 
> > expected scope of LRM editing anticipated.  Hopefully, no one 
> > should expect that VHDL can do this work at a significant 
> > discount to that which was needed for SystemVerilog.
> > 
> > 3.  Corporate support of our work as expressed by funding for
> > the effort is a great indication that we are doing something 
> > that users need (and EDA vendors recognize users want).  
> > Therefore, funding is a positive and we should be soliciting it.
> > 
> > 4.  Therefore, I thought that we could allow both membership
> > classes for 1076.  Although it has not been officially placed 
> > to a vote of the WG, I heard feedback that the current 
> > members wanted to stay with individual membership.  Allowing 
> > organizational entity membership would allow us to also 
> > recognize corporate support for our work by giving supporters 
> > a direct voice in the WG.
> > 
> > 5.  Edward Rashba counseled against having both membership
> > classes.  However, he also indicated that in some cases, such 
> > as ours, it has and could work.  Our historical operation 
> > makes it reasonable to believe that supporting both 
> > membership classes for 1076 could work.
> > 
> > 6.  Personally, I believe individual only membership would
> > hinder the ability of the WG to successfully solicit 
> > financial support.  However, I will do my best to find the 
> > funding whatever membership option the WG decides to use.
> > 
> > Since <24 hours is insufficient time to review a PAR and
> > comment, no vote to approve the PAR will be held tomorrow (10 
> > Jun 04 Meeting).  However, we will entertain discussion on 
> > the topic in preparation for a future vote via email to be 
> > conducted in ~2 weeks time.  (Discussion via email is also welcome.)
> > 
> > I'm looking forward to the meeting.  I think that Erich's
> > work on defining how PSL can be incorporated in VHDL by 
> > reference combined with the VHPI and other language change 
> > proposals that appear ready to go will result in a new 
> > revision that is highly valuable.  It will also lay the 
> > foundation for even more capabilities in the next revision.
> > 
> > To review the proposals visit
> > www.eda.org/vhdl-200x/vhdl-200x-ft 
> <www.eda.org/vhdl-200x/vhdl-200x-ft> 
> 
>  <<tmp113842779_9644.html>> 
> ------------
> Stephen Bailey
> ModelSim Verification TME
> Mentor Graphics
> sbailey@model.com
> 303-775-1655 (mobile, preferred)
> 720-494-1202 (office)
> www.model.com <www.model.com> 
> 
>