RE: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR

Karl,

The frank answer is that we need a PAR to be legit according to IEEE process. The practical implication is to be covered under the indemnity that IEEE offers for participation in standards development work. There's also the need to simply do things properly according to defined P&Ps of DASC and parent organizations.

In some sense, it is a rush of the vote. However, we have already been doing significant work in 1076 beyond the VHPI scope (only current approved PAR). Therefore, it is not a rush of the vote. It is also impractical to do the funding solicitation all in advance. And, it is impossible to predict what may or may not happen in the overall process that is relevant to the membership question.

My recommendation is for everyone to vote according to what they think is best. If the membership type chosen turns out, at some future point, to be problematic (whatever the reason), the WG can undertake the process of revising the PAR (as long as this occurs prior to forming the ballot group). While it is more efficient to get it right upfront, it is good to know that we aren't forever locked into the decision if there comes a good reason for changing it.

-Steve Bailey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org
> [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Karl Eisenhofer
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:24 PM
> Cc: 'VHDL-200x'
> Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR
>
> The objectivity of any on the reasons for or against entity
> status is in question as far as I am concerned, especially in
> light of the Cadence commitment. Is it possible to get a
> better understanding based in fact of the consequence of any
> change/non-action before forcing this issue to a vote?
> Perhaps some kind of poll of members' affiliates and
> potential contributors to the WG? Right now, I have no sense
> of how much of an impact such a change or non-action would
> have on either membership, financing, or expert involvement.
> Some have speculated that the WG can better finance
> operations, but how much better? Some have speculated that
> we would loose individula membership and involvement, but how
> much of a loss? Without a better handle on the impact of
> such a change, it is just shooting in the dark.
>
> Karl Eisenhofer
>
> Michael McNamara wrote:
>
> >Peter: Your statement against the amendment seems to be
> focued on the
> >entity versus individual ballot status.
> >
> >Question: Do you have an opinion on the other aspects of the
> amendment?
> >(spelling changes, linking to P1364 instead of P364, and including a
> >reference to 1076.3).
> >
> >
> >As for the change: the only objective justification for
> entity status I
> >have seen presented in this forum is that compaines will not
> contribute
> >financially to underwriting the efforts unless they get the
> assurances
> >of control that entity status might provide.
> >
> >The other justifications offered have been purely
> subjective, and hence
> >are impossible to effectively debate. "I think it will be
> better!" "I
> >think it won't be better!"...
> >
> >
> >The fact that Cadence has committed to underwriting
> editorial efforts
> >independent of the voting status greatly reduces the need for this
> >change, in my mind, at least in addressing the one objective
> >justification for the change.
> >
> >I commit to look into what level of funding I can arrange from my
> >company, in order to meet the implicit challege grant from Cadence.
> >
> >I am open to hearing other justifications (preferably objective) for
> >voting against the motion.
> >
> >-mac (VASG member)
> >
> >
> >-- On Jun 29 2004 at 09:37, Peter Ashenden sent a message:
> > > To: SBailey@model.com, vhdl-200x@eda.org
> > > Subject: "RE: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR"
> > > 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 Tue Jun 29 13:54:06 2004