Hi Stephen,
> I asked Jim at the first meeting to use the SG to develop a marketing
> requirements spec to use in selling the language revision. He declined.
> It looks like Victor Berman is asking for something similar. Without
> that information, the default decision for committing resources is to
> decline.
Technically all of the work to be done on the standard is up to
WG, and not the study group. So whatever the study group
decides, the WG could decide differently later. Hence, I am
hesitant to have the study group make any statement about what
the WG will decide later.
However, Victor pointed out that I would probably be asked some
clarification in the DASC meeting and rather than speak my mind,
I thought it more important to summarize a group discussion.
Looking forward, it is my desire that the WG is run in a similar
fashion to the Accellera VHDL WG:
1) Develop and prioritize requirements.
2) Write proposals for implementation of requirements
3) Vote on proposals to make sure they address the requirements
4) Write LRM changes
It would be appropriate if the vendors proactively reached
out to their user community at some point in the process -
either at step 1, step 3, or both - to make sure that the
changes have value to their user community.
Best Regards,
Jim
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Dec 20 13:01:24 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 20 2010 - 13:01:44 PST