RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST

We can also add a Note to the Editor in 1957 that it should be
implemented only if 1571 is not approved.

Shalom 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart Sutherland [mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:13 PM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST
> 
> 
> >From the editor's point of view, I am OK with approving both 
> items as 
> >you
> suggest as long a note to the editor is also added in 1957 
> stating that 1571 supersedes it, if 1571 is approved.  
> 
> The risk of approving both at the BC level is forgetting to 
> close 1957 if
> 1571 is approved all the way through the working group.  It 
> works in this case, though, even if some how both items get 
> approved for incorporation instead of closing 1957.  I 
> incorporate the approved Mantis items in numeric order when I 
> do the editing.  Since both approved items would go into the 
> same round of editing I would incorporate 1571 first, and 
> when I got to 1957 it would be obvious that it was already 
> incorporated, and the added note to the editor would tell me 
> that 1571's text supersedes anything in 1957.
> 
> Stu
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Stuart Sutherland
> Sutherland HDL, Inc.
> stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
> 503-692-0898
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:44 AM
> > To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST
> > 
> > How about we incorporate 1957 into 1571 cleanly as you say, without 
> > strike-outs, but not put 1957 on the back burner? Let 1957 
> go through 
> > in the mean time. Let's have 1571 say it overrides 1957 and if
> > 1571 passes
> > the WG, marking 1571 as approved should include closing 1957. 
> > 
> > Shalom
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stuart Sutherland [mailto:stuart@sutherland-hdl.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:37 PM
> > > To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yes, I need mean to mark "No" on my vote.  I had 
> originally marked 
> > > yes, but then was concerned about how to handle the dependency on 
> > > another proposal.
> > > Can we incorporate 1957 into 1571 cleanly (without the 
> > > strike-through text in the 1957 portions, since that text 
> not exist 
> > > in the current LRM), and put
> > > 1957 on a back burner to be closed once 1571 has passed at least 
> > > through the champion's level?
> > > 
> > > Stu
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > Stuart Sutherland
> > > Sutherland HDL, Inc.
> > > stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
> > > 503-692-0898
> > >  
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:02 AM
> > > > To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST
> > > > 
> > > > Stu,
> > > > 
> > > > > > SVDB 1571 _X_Yes   ___No  
> > > > > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1571
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm voting no only because I'm not sure how to best 
> handle the 
> > > > > dependency of
> > > > > 1571 on 1957.  If 1957 passes all the way through the
> > > working group,
> > > > > then I have no problems with 1571.  If 1957 does not
> > > pass, however,
> > > > > then the proposal for 1571 needs to be rewritten.  
> > > Perhaps a better
> > > > > way to handle this dependency is to fold 1957 into this
> > proposal,
> > > > > and close 1957 as a duplicate.
> > > > 
> > > > I assume you meant to put your X on No, not Yes.
> > > > 
> > > > There is no reason 1957 should not pass. It was unaminously
> > > passed by
> > > > SV-BC and the only comment in the Champions was that the
> > > quotes should
> > > > be straight, not smart. That could even have been a simple
> > > Note to the
> > > > Editor.
> > > > 
> > > > However, 1571 (latest version) incorporates 1957 and if
> > > passed, would
> > > > supercede 1957 (and should say so, I guess).
> > > > 
> > > > I would not close 1957 as a duplicate, though, because 
> 1957 would 
> > > > still need to be implemented if 1571 does not pass.
> > > > 
> > > > Shalom
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Intel Israel (74) Limited
> > > > 
> > > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential
> > > material for
> > > > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or
> > > distribution
> > > > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
> > > > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Intel Israel (74) Limited
> > 
> > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential 
> material for 
> > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or 
> distribution 
> > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
> > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> > 
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
> > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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