RE: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote on Group Organization and PAR

I find it impossible to believe that there is no clue of what the scope
of this effort will actually entail. There's a huge difference in every
aspect between maintaining a standard by addressing any bugs in the
standard and making significant enhancements and additions to the
standard. I have never been involved in a SG or WG where some
understanding of the objectives is not understood at the start, or, at
latest, when the PAR is submitted. Why would anyone want to be
involved? Can you think of a better way to ensure maximum
dissatisfaction with the result than to leave an understanding of the
scope unstated? The email discussion since I distributed my negative
vote on PAR approval indicates how wide the expectations are.

SG's have 6 months. They should be able to determine the relative scope
of the project in that time frame. Asking for PAR approval after 2
meetings that focus only on the type of organization of the WG is
inappropriate.

-Steve Bailey

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Victor Berman
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:25 PM
To: Jim Lewis; vhdl-200x@eda.org
Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote on Group Organization and PAR

My view on this is that even if the usage of VHDL is shrinking, it still
represents a significant user base and customer base. Even if no
enhancements are actually done it is important to have an active WG to
take
care of maintenance and other issues that arise. In order for this to
happen
under IEEE auspices it is necessary that there be an active PAR in
place.
As a member of RevCom I have seen many standards that are in use by
large
segments of industry suffer for lack of an active WG to take care of
them.

The process that was followed, as outlined by Jim below, in the last
iteration seemed to work well. Rather than prejudge the outcome I would
like to see an active WG formed where the various constituencies of VHDL
are
represented and they develop a thoughtful plan that is both realistic
and
opportunistic in the sense of making improvement if and when they are
justified by a rational cost/benefit analysis. This seems to be what
Jim is
proposing which is why I support the effort.

 thanks,
  Victor

On 12/20/10 3:22 PM, "Jim Lewis" <Jim@synthworks.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.