Folks,
I speak against the amendment for the reasons I have outlined in earlier
messages. I think entity membership for the ballot group (and hence the
working group) is preferred, and that we can provide for individual voting
within technical subgroups.
Cheers,
PA
-- 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: Tuesday, 29 June 2004 06:14 > To: VHDL-200x > Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR > > > Thank you Mac. > > Now, I'll allow 24 hours to see if there is any discussion on > the motion to amend before calling a vote. > > -Steve Bailey > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael McNamara [mailto:mac@verisity.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 2:00 PM > > To: Bailey, Stephen > > Cc: VHDL-200x > > Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR > > > > > > I second the motion to amend. > > > > Michael McNamara. > > > > > > -- On Jun 28 2004 at 12:43, Bailey, Stephen sent a message: > > > To: vhdl-200x@eda.org > > > Subject: "RE: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR" > > > All, > > > > > > Jim's motion to amend Peter's motion requires a second > > before it can be considered. Due to the pending NESCOM > > deadline, I will allow 24 hours for a second. > > > > > > If Jim's motion is seconded, then we will have two votes: > > > > > > 1. On the motion to amend. > > > 2. On the amended motion. > > > > > > If the motion is not seconded or the the 1st vote (on the > > motion to amend) fails, then we will vote on the original motion. > > > > > > Thanks, all for helping to move this process along. > > > > > > -Steve Bailey > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org > > > > [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Jim Lewis > > > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 1:27 PM > > To: VHDL-200x > > > > Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR > > > > OOPs I missed > > one of the typo amendments. Let me restate my > > motion to > > amend the motion: > > > > > > > > I move that we amend the motion for the approval of the > > PAR > > so that it reads as follows: > > > > > > > > That the VASG approve the attached revision PAR for IEEE > > > > Std 1076 with > > > > the following changes: > > > > > > > > Item 11: Strike out the word "Entity" and insert the > > > > word "Individual". > > > > > > > > Item 13: Change "1164 and 1076.2" to "1164, > > 1076.2 and 1076.3". > > > > > > > > Item 13: Change releated to related. > > > > > > > > Item 16: Change P364 should be P1364 (Verilog). > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR > > > > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:03:10 -0700 > > From: Jim > > Lewis <Jim@synthworks.com> > > To: VHDL-200x > > <vhdl-200x@eda.org> > > > > I move that we amend the motion > > for the approval of the PAR > > so that it reads as follows: > > > > > > > > That the VASG approve the attached revision PAR for IEEE > > > > Std 1076 with > > > > the following changes: > > > > > > > > Item 11: Change to "Individual". > > > > > > > > Item 13: Change "1164 and 1076.2" to "1164, 1076.2 > > and 1076.3". > > > > > > > > Item 16: Change P364 should be P1364 (Verilog). > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > Peter, > > > > > > > > > > I will second the motion. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Dennis > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org > > > > [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Peter Ashenden > > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 10:02 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Jim Lewis > > > > Director of Training mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com > > > > SynthWorks Design Inc. http://www.SynthWorks.com > > > > 1-503-590-4787 > > > > > > > > Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and > > Verification > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Jim Lewis > > > > Director of Training mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com > > > > SynthWorks Design Inc. http://www.SynthWorks.com > > > > 1-503-590-4787 > > > > > > > > Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and > > Verification > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > >Received on Mon Jun 28 17:07:41 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 28 2004 - 17:08:37 PDT