RE: [sv-ec] 1800 draft 3 review

Just to clarify, there are actually 3 choices that go with the review of the
editing. Per the working group guidelines:

6. LRM Review by the SV-* Committees
    1. Once an issue has status:acknowledged, the appropriate SV-*
committee must
        review the changes for correctness
      1. If the change is correct, the issue is moved to status:closed
      2. If the change is not correct and the description was correct, the
issue is
          moved to category:SV-LRM and status:new, and mail is sent to the
LRM team
      3. If the change is not correct and the description of the change
needs to be
          modified, the issue is changed to status:assigned

Please do check carefully. I tried to be accurate in the editing, and
proofread my own work. But, I'm very good at seeing what I thought I wrote,
and not the actual words. Also, there were occasions where I had to made
assumptions about how to apply multiple changes to the same paragraph (those
assumptions are noted in the margins).

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
+1-503-692-0898
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:36 AM
> To: sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] 1800 draft 3 review
>
> The main item that needs to be completed ASAP is for the
> assignee of each Acknowledged erratum to check whether Draft
> 3 accurately implements the details of the approved proposal.
> No SV-EC votes are required for this step of the process.
>
> 4 Ray
> 6 Arturo
> 7 Arturo
> 8 Ray
> 9 Dave
> 25 Neil
> 172 Ray
> 173 Arturo
> 175 Mehdi
> 231 Surrendra
> 250 Mehdi
> 252 Arturo
> 260 Francoise
>
> If you are satisfied with the editorial implementation of
> your assigned erratum, update the erratum to Closed and Fixed.
> If you find an editorial problem, assign it back to SV-LRM
> and send some e-mail about it to Stu, Mehdi, Neil and Karen --
>
> http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/2639.html
>
> -- Brad
>
> p.s. After going through some of my assigned errata for
> SV-BC, I can report that Stu has done an excellent job. The
> only problem I've found so far was caused by my own neglect
> to add blue to highlight an addition.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org]On
> Behalf Of Francoise Martinolle
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 9:24 AM
> To: 'Mehdi Mohtashemi'; sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-ec] 1800 draft 3 review
>
>
>
> Mehdi,
>
> I may have missed some email from you regarding this. But I
> am wondering if there is a plan for review of draft 3 of the
> LRM and in particular to verify that the changes have been
> well incorporated in draft 3.
> I am sorry if I missed an email from you on this subject.
>
> Francoise
> '
>
>
>
Received on Wed Jan 19 14:50:13 2005