RE: [vhdl-200x] 1076 & Entity balloting

Steve,

Just for reference, the PSL v1.01 and PSL v1.1 LRMs were edited by volunteers - specifically, by the chair and co-chair of the FVTC, with much help from committee members - since the initial funding for a technical editor for PSL ran out in July 2002, and Accellera was unable to find additional funds to continue the technical editing. It could be argued that editing of a mature and relatively stable standard such as VHDL 1076 should require less effort than that required for a standard such as PSL, in its first and second iteration. So I think Bhasker's suggestion has some merit.

I also think that this whole discussion has been focused too much on monetary contributions from corporate entities. (One might say, heavy on dollars, and light on sense.) The biggest contribution to any standard is the time spent by experts in the field, nearly all of which is sponsored by some company. LRM editing is only one of many tasks that require both time and expertise. If corporate entities are willing to donate the time of domain experts to help define the standard, why wouldn't they also be willing to donate the time of those same experts (or if necessary, others who are skilled in technical writing) to maintaining the LRM, to make sure the standard is clearly specified?

In particular, the VHDL 1993 LRM was edited by Paul Menchini. During most of that effort he was employed by my company, CLSI, and all of his time editing the LRM was donated by CLSI. We viewed this as part of our obligation to keep the standard alive and well. Furthermore, as a small company, we could afford to donate Paul's time, whereas we could not have afforded an equivalent monetary donation.

Donations of time are relatively easy for a corporation to justify, because they keep the company informed about where a standard is going, and they give it an opportunity to have some influence without directly impacting the bottom line. Donations of money need a greater justification, and bring with them proprietary interests, business politics, and the potential for corruption in the form of selling influence to the highest bidder.

I respect the fact that others feel differently, and I don't intend to proselytize, nor will I engage further in this debate, but my personal preference would be to continue looking for volunteers whose employers are willing to donate their valuable time, rather than depending upon monetary contributions to fund standards development.

Regards,

Erich

| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org
| [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bailey, Stephen
| Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 2:39 PM
| To: Jayaram Bhasker; vhdl-200x@eda.org
| Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] 1076 & Entity balloting
|
|
| Bhasker,
|
| > -----Original Message-----
| > From: Jayaram Bhasker [mailto:JBhasker@eSilicon.com]
| >
| > There is a 5th choice (other than the 4 listed by Steve),
| > which many of the other WGs have
| > used:
| >
| > 5) A volunteer editor.
|
| Editing the 1076 LRM is not the same as editing a standard
| which is essentially defined by the implementation of
| packages in standard VHDL source. The expertise required
| limits the universe of acceptable technical editors
| significantly. In the past, the people qualified to do this
| were unwilling to do so pro bono.
|
| If you are aware of someone who is both qualified and willing
| to do the work as a volunteer, please let us know.
|
| -Steve Bailey
|
Received on Fri Jun 25 13:11:22 2004