Re: [sv-bc] Opinion on merging of P1364 and P1800

Stu wrote --

    "Once the initial merged draft was completed, my proposal was to
give the committees 2 calendar months to review and make comments on the
work (and to respond to editor questions/comments, if any).  This would
be followed by 1 calendar month for the editor to integrate feedback
from the review."

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael (Mac) McNamara [mailto:mcnamara@cadence.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:06 PM
To: Steven Sharp; sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ac@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org;
Brad.Pierce@synopsys.COM
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Re: [sv-bc] Opinion on merging of P1364 and P1800

There is certainly truth to this (importance of fixing current P1800
errata).

However I expect the act of merging the standards will reveal additional
errata, as text intended to describe the same thing or interacting
things is brought together, and the ill-fitting seams become evident.

Merging the standards sooner rather than later will, it is my
estimation, eliminate work as the committee will then be able to focus
on perfecting a single description of each feature, rather than
maintaining two. 

We have a very well qualified estimate from the most knowledgeable
person on the planet that such an effort would require 6 man weeks.  

Perhaps debate on this particular topic can be cut off by at the
appropriate time seeking approval of a motion to engage the current
editor to perform this merging task, and see how the corporate sponsors
wish to allocate their financial resources.

Michael McNamara
mcnamara@cadence.com
408-914-6808 work
408-348-7025 cell


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Steven Sharp
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:43 AM
To: sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ac@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org;
Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Re: [sv-bc] Opinion on merging of P1364 and P1800


>From: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>

>It's a question of priorities, opportunity cost, return on investment,
>and resource constraints.

And this is true even if we ignore the "real job" issues that Brad
raised.  Even within the standardization effort there are priorities.

The current 1800 standard contains a large number of errata that need
to be fixed.  Until the worst of these are addressed, this is much more
urgent than the merging of standards.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com