Re: [sv-bc] Agenda: Feb 27 SV-BC Errata Committee Meeting

OK, I see that Stu abstained on 1298

    http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/3871.html

instead of objecting.

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:15 AM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Agenda: Feb 27 SV-BC Errata Committee Meeting

Brad,

Who objected to 1298?

Regarding 949, I think we might be able to quickly agree on Mark's
proposal. He justified it in 
http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/3845.html.

Regarding issue 658, there are 2 PDF files there, an early one and a
late one, where the late one comes to supplement the early one. The
reason the late one was not implemented is that it was approved by the
P1800 WG after balloting was completed. Thus it is in the resolved
state. No action needs to be taken by SV-BC. We just need to remember to
implement it when the time comes.

However, since that 2nd PDF file implements the correction to issue
1252, I propose that we close issue 1252 as being already fixed by 658,
as already noted in 1252.

Shalom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:06 AM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Agenda: Feb 27 SV-BC Errata Committee
> Meeting
> 
> We should able to quickly resolve the following failed e-mail
> vote items
> without modifying any proposals
> 
>    http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=919
>    http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=962
>    http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1297
>    http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1298
> 
> and possibly also
> 
>    http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=882
> 
> I've added friendly-amended proposals for the following failed
> e-mail
> vote items
> 
>    http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=911
>    http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=946
>    http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1138
> 
> The following two failed e-mail vote items do not yet have
> consensus-building new formal proposals, and they are not Top-N
> priority
> items, so they will be tabled
> 
>    http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=949
>    http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1255
> 
> Also, we need to hear more from Shalom and Stu about resolved
> item
> 
>    http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=658
> 
> and the report about its implementation in
> 
>    http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/4048.html
> 
> -- Brad