Subject: RE: several proposal submitted for email voting
From: Jay Lawrence (lawrence@cadence.com)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 04:57:35 PST
Johny,
On the sv-ec website there is a very nice little document that contains the "operating
guidelines" for sv-ec. I recently had a question regarding procedures in sv-ec that David S.
and I were able to work out just by referring to it.
Does such a document exist for sv-bc? Can we all get a copy of it?
The sv-bc webpage is nonexistant so this sort of thing is hard to find if you haven't
been on the reflector the whole time (and even then it gets buried in mail folders).
If there is no provision in those guidelines for an email voting structure and how it is
to be carried out, then I suggest that you and/or Karen draft such a procedure and
we hold a vote at the next sv-bc meeting to approve the procedure rather than debating
it while a vote is going on.
Jay
===================================
Jay Lawrence
Architect - Functional Verification
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
(978) 262-6294
lawrence@cadence.com
===================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Srouji, Johny [mailto:johny.srouji@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 7:42 AM
To: Francoise Martinolle; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: several proposal submitted for email voting
Hi Françoise,
I recall that last time we discussed this (in Dec) as was raised by Karen, it was agreed that no vote will be assumed as approve. Karen has also followed this for our last email voting as written under: <http://www.eda.org/vlog-pp/sv-bc/hm/0252.html> http://www.eda.org/vlog-pp/sv-bc/hm/0252.html. Cutting the relevant paragraph: "Any issues discussed will be removed for later discussion by the entire committee. Anyone not voting will be assumed to approve the changes."
It could be that agreement was particularly wrt the simple edits. Anyway, I suggest that anyone not voting will be assumed "not objecting" to the proposal. Otherwise, it will be raised for discussion.
hope this clarifies it.
--- Johny.
-----Original Message-----
From: Francoise Martinolle [mailto:fm@cadence.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 4:11 PM
To: Srouji, Johny; sv-bc@eda.org
Cc: Srouji, Johny
Subject: Re: several proposal submitted for email voting
Johny,
typically in other committees, anyone not voting is assumed to abstain.
It seems to me more logical than assuming they approved. Some people
may not vote because they don't care, forgot or were not available.
What other people think?
Francoise
'
At 04:39 PM 1/12/2003 +0200, Srouji, Johny wrote:
Hi All,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Attached are several proposals that have a second, and because they were previously discussed, we are likely able to pass them without further discussions. Therefore, I move that we vote on these topics through mail.
Let me know if you have an issue w/ any of these proposals, or send your vote/clarification/discussions. Anyone not voting will be assumed to approve the changes. Voting will close by next Monday, 01//20/2003 at 11:00 AM (right after our tele-call). If there is no discussion of any of these items by this date, then proposal will pass.
Following is the list of proposals:
1. SV-BC2 - timescale vs. timeunit
2. This is a write-up of the behavior agreed upon at the 11/15 F2F
3. http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0224.html - posted 12/6/02 by Dave Rich
4. SV-BC44-3 self determination of assignment as expression
5. http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0271.html - posted 12/26/02 by Dave Rich
6. SV-BC44-9 behavior of disable
7. http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0272.html - posted 12/26/02 by Dave Rich
8. SV-BC44-15 removal of "changed"
9. http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/0273.html - posted 12/26/02 by Dave Rich
10. Clarification of operations allowed on unpacked arrays
11. SystemVerilog allows certain operations on aggregate unpacked arrays. From LRM section 4.2, it allows read and writes as a whole or slice of an unpacked array, but not as part of an integer expression. From this wording, it is unclear as to whether or not a comparison of two unpacked arrays would be allowed.
12. Karen proposed that we append a bullet to the first list of bullets that reads:
13. -- Equality operations the array or slice of the array, e.g. A==B, A[i:j] != B[i:j]
14. Also a small correction to the preceding paragraph
15. Replace:
16. The examples provided with these rules assume that A and B are arrays.
17. With:
18. The examples provided with these rules assume that A and B are arrays of the same shape and type.
Regards,
--- Johny.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 04:58:05 PST