Re: [sv-ec][URGENT] email ballot #4, on Erratum 275, voting closes on 15 Dec 2004

Mehdi,

I vote 'Yes' on my modified proposal for erratum 275.

    Arturo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mehdi Mohtashemi" <Mehdi.Mohtashemi@synopsys.COM>
To: <sv-ec@eda.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 4:57 PM
Subject: RE: [sv-ec][URGENT] email ballot #4, on Erratum 275, voting closes on 15 Dec 2004

Hi Paul, and all
 Since the proposal was updated by Arturo based
on the comments from the group, I would ask everyone
to review the modified proposal and vote on the erratum 275.
For those who have voted No, if the new proposal
addresses those concern, please reconsider your vote.
For those who have yet not voted, please send in
your vote as soon as possible.
thanks,
- Mehdi
[The email ballot is appended below. The modified proposal
 from Arturo, is attached]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mehdi Mohtashemi" <Mehdi.Mohtashemi@synopsys.COM>
To: <sv-ec@eda.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:53 PM
Subject: [sv-ec][URGENT] email ballot #4, on Erratum 275, voting closes
on 15 Dec 2004

 Subject: special email vote ballot on Erratum 275
 
 All,
 After reviewing erratum 334 (null bytes in string variable),
 it became clear that erratum 275 needed to be looked at more carefully
 with the intention of making the necessary correction and placing
 it for vote. Neil and I feel that with the attached proposal,
 we now have cleared all ambiguities in the original text of
 erratum 275 (which was collection of items) and are asking
 for an email vote.
 Please carefully review the attached proposal (also uploaded
 into the database). Based on the fact that items 1, 2 and 5
 require written proposals, and items 3, 4, 6, 7 are clarification
 and are resolved based on the approval of items 1,2 and 5 of
 the 275, we have structured the ballot into 3 individual votes
 on items 1,2 and 5. Item 8 is also placed for vote, we are
 requesting that there will be a new erratum created with
 normal priority to address this. If all these 4 items receive
 pass votes, the erratum 275 will be closed and a new erratum
 for item 8 will be created.

Proposal for item 1: The type of a single character within a string
   is byte.
Proposal for item 2: The putc method has only one prototype:
    task putc( int i, byte c );
Proposal for item 5: Typo in example, example should be modified

Proposal for item 8: Usage of word string: Create a new erratum
   for this, and close 275 if all items above
pass.
  http://www.eda.org/svdb/

 Please consider voting early on this, so we can close it by
  possibly December 14, 2004.
thanks,
- Mehdi

 Please note that any NO vote requires a reason to be stated.
 Also consider voting early as December 1st is the deadline set
 by P1800 to get all the results.
 Eligible voters as of our last meeting, December 6, 2004 are:
------------------------------------------------------------
 Alex Wakefield
 Arturo Salz
 Bill Paulsen
 Brad Pierce
 Dave Rich
 Don Mills
 Francoise Martinolle
 Neil Korpusik
 Ray Ryan
 Steven Sharp
 Surrendra Dudani

===============Erratum 275, =========
 
 Please respond to the items in this erratum, place an X in the
 appropriate box and place explanation for No vote.

  Errata 275 (proposal uploaded 12/8/2004, also attached)
   item 1. The type of a single character within a string is byte
____ Yes ____ No

   item 2: The putc method has only one prototype: task putc( int i,
byte c );
____ Yes ____ No

   item 5: Typo in example, example should be modified
____ Yes ____ No

   item 8: Usage of word string: Create a new erratum
   for this, and close 275 if all items above
pass
____ Yes ____ No
 
================================================================
Received on Tue Dec 14 18:55:21 2004