Re: FW: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR

Steve,

One typo:
releated should be related

Question about the dates:
initial ballot 2005/1/31
submission to revcom 2005/6/30.

I thought that we were trying to submit to revcom by end of the 2004.
What is causing the delay?

Francoise
    '
    

>X-Authentication-Warning: isvw3.cadence.com: iscan owned process doing -bs
>X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda.org: majordom set sender to
owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org using -f
>From: "Bailey, Stephen" <SBailey@model.com>
>To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
>Subject: FW: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:56:56 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:85.5827 )
>X-Received: By mailgate.Cadence.COM as GAA01993 at Mon Jun 28 06:58:17 2004
>
>All,
>
>We have a motion that has yet to be seconded. In case WG members are not aware
of the process, I have a discussion of it below. Also, please be aware that
NESCOM's next cut-off date is 6 July. Therefore, we should get to closure on
the PAR ASAP to make that cut-off date.
>
>The general process for making WG decisions is as follows:
>
>1. A motion is made.
>2. Typically there is some level of discussion to ensure all understand what
is being moved and why.
>
>Either:
>3.a. A second is received.
>3.b. The motion dies for lack of a second.
>
>If the motion is seconded:
>4. Further discussion (if needed) can be conducted for a limited time until
the chair calls for a vote.
>
>5. Optionally, a motion can be made to amend the motion under consideration.
(Generally, the same process as above is followed. Typically discussion is much
shorter as the discussion on the original motion would have led to the
amendment.)
>Since no 2nd has been received yet, we cannot entertain any amendments (either
for the membership class or any administrative/typographical corrections.)
>
>6. Call for vote on the motion.
>
>As the discussion has quieted down and generally the issues pro/con are well
known at this point, we are at the point where a second must be received or the
motion will be withdrawn. Other than motions to amend the motion currently
under consideration, no other motion can be considered until we complete the
process on this motion. (This is why Jim withdrew his motion last week.)
>
>Logistically, we are looking at 6 July as NESCOM's next cut-off date.
Therefore, if no 2nd is received by 8am (US east coast), 29 June 2004, I will
remove this motion from consideration for lack of a 2nd.
>
>-Steve Bailey
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Peter Ashenden
>Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 11:02 PM
>To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
>Subject: 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>
>>
>>
>
Received on Mon Jun 28 07:20:39 2004