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

Victor,

Thanks for the offer. We will review it more closely after we get the PAR and P&Ps in place. It is very generous. I am hopeful that we will be able to find a diversity of sponsors as that would be both equitable and indicative of the interest and importance of VHDL.

-Steve Bailey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Victor Berman [mailto:vberman@cadence.com <mailto:vberman@cadence.com> ]
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 12:30 PM
> To: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] 1076 & Entity balloting
>
>
> Steve,
>
> Cadence is willing to assign a tech editor to this project
> if that is what is needed. We would also be happy to split
> this responsibility with other companies who wish to
> participate since we have not interest in controlling the outcome.
>
> The decision to change the WG to entity basis is an
> important one, both practically and philosophically. I would
> hate to see this made purely on the basis of being afraid
> that you will not be able to get funding for the technical
> editting of the specification update. I have no problem with
> a change in the voting basis of the WG but I think it should
> be done for a better reason than getting funding for some
> fairly straight forward document updates.
>
> The companies involved in and interested in the updates
> to the standards will be the ones who pay for the processes
> needed to make this happen, including technical editting.
> This is true regardless of the voting structure of the WG.
>
>
> Regards,
> Victor
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org
> [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org <mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org> ] On Behalf Of Bailey, Stephen
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 6:09 PM
> To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] 1076 & Entity balloting
>
>
> As I said before, if there are volunteers, please step
> forward. I certainly won't say no!
>
> -Steve Bailey
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erich Marschner [mailto:erichm@cadence.com <mailto:erichm@cadence.com>
> > <mailto:erichm@cadence.com <mailto:erichm@cadence.com> > ]
> > Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 2:11 PM
> > To: Bailey, Stephen; Jayaram Bhasker; vhdl-200x@eda.org
> > Subject: 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 <mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org>
> > | <mailto: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 <mailto:JBhasker@eSilicon.com>
> > | > <mailto:JBhasker@eSilicon.com <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 Mon Jun 28 11:38:58 2004