Re: [sv-bc] E-mail Ballot: Respond by Wed Sep 05 8am PDT

Maidment, Matthew R wrote:
> -You have until 8am PDT, Wednesday, September 05, 2007 to respond
> -An issue passes if there are zero NO votes and half of the eligible
>  voters respond with a YES vote.
> -If you vote NO on any issue, your vote must be accompanied by a reason.
>  The issue will then be up for discussion during a future conference
> call.
> -Note: For some issues, the proposed action is captured in the bug note
>        (resolve as duplicate, already addressed, etc.). 
>
> As of the August 20, 2007 meeting, the eligible voters are:
>
> Brad Pierce        
> Shalom Bresticker  
> Cliff Cummings     
> Surrendra Dudani   
> Mark Hartoog        
> Francoise Martinolle
> Karen Pieper       
> Dave Rich          
> Steven Sharp       
> Gordon Vreugdenhil 
> Stu Sutherland 
> Alex Gran
> Don Mills
> Heath Chambers
> Will Cummings
>
> SVDB 910 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=910
>
> SVDB 995 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=995
>
> SVDB 1025 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1025
>   
yes to close this (1025)
> SVDB 1031 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1031
>   
yes to close this (1031)
> SVDB 1061 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1061
>   
yes to close this (1061)
> SVDB 1118 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1118
>
> SVDB 1140 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1140
>
> SVDB 1141 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1141
>
> SVDB 1155 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1155
>   
yes to close this (1155)
> SVDB 1203 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1203
>   
yes to close (1203)
> SVDB 1217 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1217
>
> SVDB 1285 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1285
>   
yest to close (1285)
> SVDB 1485 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1485
>
> SVDB 1651 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1651
>   
yes to close (1651)
> SVDB 1665 _X__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1665
>   
yes to close (1665)
> SVDB 1693 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1693
>
> SVDB 1938 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1938
>
> SVDB 1939 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1939
>   
friendly amendment - should we add "as defined in section 5-7" which is 
where x_digit and z_digit is defined?
> SVDB 1940 ___Yes   _x__No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1940
>   
This change removes all references to "net" in the introduction 
paragraph to section 6.8.  Yet sections 6.8.1 and 6.8.2 both refer to 
Vector nets.  (1958 may fixes some of the text but not the example)  Do 
these sections need to be scrubbed also?  If we don't define or describe 
in the intro to 6.8 that vector nets exists, where is it defined 
(declared).  Will this section subject need to be repeated for nets 
somewhere else in the spec?
> SVDB 1941 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1941
>
> SVDB 1955 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1955
>
> SVDB 1958 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1958
>
> SVDB 1963 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1963
>
> SVDB 1988 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1988
>
> SVDB 1989 _x__Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1989
>
>   

-- 
==========================================================
Don Mills
mills@lcdm-eng.com
www.lcdm-eng.com
==========================================================


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