[sv-ec] Results of Email vote - closes June 22nd

From: Neil Korpusik <Neil.Korpusik_at_.....>
Date: Sat Jun 23 2007 - 15:41:06 PDT
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Korpusik                                     Tel: 408-276-6385
Frontend Technologies (FTAP)                      Fax: 408-276-5092
Sun Microsystems                       email: neil.korpusik@sun.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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


Results of the last email vote: 

1789 - passed 
   11 yes (Cliff's vote was on the earlier proposal)
    0 no
    0 abstain
    5 didn't vote

1857 - failed
    2 yes
    7 no
    2 abstain
    5 didn't vote

1371 - failed
    1 yes
    8 no
    2 abstain
    5 didn't vote


Please note that the operating guidelines are:
   - One (1) week to respond (7pm PST June 22, 2007)
   - An issue passes if there are zero ** NO ** votes and at least
     half of the eligible voters respond with a YES vote.
   - Any NO vote must be accompanied by a reason.
     This issue will then be up for discussion at the next conference call.



1789  ___ Yes   ___ No   - new proposal was posted during the vote (f -old one)
Y  Arturo Salz
Yf Cliff Cummings
-  Dave Rich
Y  Francoise Martinolle
   Typo in the last row: Str.nethod (...)
			  ^
Y  Neil Korpusik
-  Ray Ryan
Y  Gordon Vreugdenhil
Y  Steven Sharp
Y  Stu Sutherland
-  Heath Chambers
-  Don Mills
Y  Jonathan Bromley
   If possible, I'd like to squeeze in a friendly amendment to replace the 
   phrase "assigned to an integral type" (or similar) with something like 
   "assigned to a variable of integral type".  Such wording appears in at least 
   six places.  The proposal is reasonably clear without this amendment, but 
   the confusion of "type" and "variable" is unfortunate.

   [From Geoffrey]
   I'm open to the friendly amendment, but I'm not sure it's correct to say 
   "variable" because I believe one could also use string literals as default 
   values for integer type parameters, along the lines of
     parameter [31:0] input = "AAAA";
   The current text has this sentence:
     A string literal can be assigned to a string type or an integral type.
   and I tried to stick with the "convention."

   [From Shalom]
   The most correct term might be 'data object'.
Y  Mark Hartoog
Y  Mike Mintz
Y  Geoffrey Coram  <--- the author
-  David Scott

1857  ___ Yes   ___ No   
N  Arturo Salz
   This should be discussed in the committee.
N  Cliff Cummings
   I believe I favor the proposal but I am not completely following the second 
   example and the issue is complex enough that I would like Gord to personally 
   explain the issue and how the second example works in our regular EC 
   conference call on 6/25.
-  Dave Rich
Y  Francoise Martinolle
N  Neil Korpusik
   There were a lot of differences of opinions being expressed through
   the email discussions of this item on the reflector.
-  Ray Ryan
Y  Gordon Vreugdenhil
A  Steven Sharp
N  Stu Sutherland
   I vote no 1857 and 1371 because the e-mail traffic and voting on these items
   indicates that there are still concerns to be resolved.
-  Heath Chambers
-  Don Mills
A  Jonathan Bromley
   I am in favour of the proposal, but I lack the expertise in compiler theory 
   to be 100% sure that it doesn't have any unpleasant side effects.
N  Mark Hartoog
   This proposal needs more discussion.  
   I think there are better ways of doing this
N  Mike Mintz
   We need to discuss this some more.
N  Geoffrey Coram
   I agree with Cliff that the material for 8.24 needs to be explained.
-  David Scott

1371  ___ Yes   ___ No   
N  Arturo Salz
   The verbiage needs work. There's some under-specification.
N  Cliff Cummings
   I agree with Jonathan about the extra sentence fragment, but I also believe
   the addition to the first paragraph is incomplete.

   Since the first paragraph is explicit about what happens if there is at least
   one initial block in at least one program, it should also explain what
   happens when there are not initial blocks in any programs.

   I believe when there are one or more programs with no initial blocks, such
   as when the programs might only contain declarations, task and function
   definitions (for whatever reason), then the programs do not call explicit
   $exit commands. If this is true, it should be properly worded and added to
   the first paragraph of the proposal.

   Also, the proposal is font inconsistent, especially in the second paragraph
   of the proposal (friendly amendment update).

   Descendent is spelled three different ways in two paragraphs, 
   including "decedent" the legal term for a dead person  :-) 

   Are "descendent threads" described elsewhere in the LRM?

   Also minor typo: "If there is least one" should be "If there is at 
   least one ..."

   The proposal still is not explicit about what happens when there are 
   NO initial blocks in any of the programs.

   I assume something like: If there are no initial blocks in any 
   programs, the simulation shall not execute an implicit $exit command.
-  Dave Rich
A  Francoise Martinolle (originally voted yes, but then changed it to No)
   No reason for the no vote --> doesn't count as a no vote.
Y  Neil Korpusik
-  Ray Ryan
N  Gordon Vreugdenhil
   Agree with others that there needs to be a bit more fine tuning.
A  Steven Sharp
N  Stu Sutherland
   I vote no 1857 and 1371 because the e-mail traffic and voting on these items
   indicates that there are still concerns to be resolved.
-  Heath Chambers
-  Don Mills
N  Jonathan Bromley
   My vote becomes Yes if the spurious incomplete sentence When all initial 
   constructs in a program have completed is removed from the middle of the 
   last paragraph of the proposal.  I hope this can be regarded as a friendly 
   amendment.
N  Mark Hartoog
   Proposal needs more work to cover missing cases
   and improve wording as others have indicated.
N  Mike Mintz
   We need to discuss this some more.  
N  Geoffrey Coram
   The fragment needs to be removed; Cliff is right that the text should say 
   something about what happens when there are no initial blocks (what about 
   only final blocks?).
-  David Scott
Received on Sat Jun 23 15:41:26 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 23 2007 - 15:41:41 PDT