[sv-ec] Editor comments on reviewing draft8-preliminary

All,
 
The replacement of the word "ensure" in draft8-preliminary has resulted in
considerable e-mail traffic with alternate suggestions, and alternates to
those alternates.  I am quickly getting confused!  (It doesn't take much to
confuse me).  Rather than my trying to sort out which alternate suggestions
to use, I request that each committee chair collect the suggestions, sort
them out, and send me a SINGLE SUMMARY message with ALL requested changes
under that committee's umbrella.  Please send me this list ONE TIME, on, or
just before, the December 19, 2008 deadline that Neil set for reviewing
draft8-preliminary.
 
Also, please remember that the Working Group only approved the committees
making corrections to text that was changed between draft7a and
draft8-preliminary.  If any of the committees should happen to find other
errata that already existed in draft 7a, the errata should be tracked, but
CANNOT be corrected in the final draft 8.  It will be up to those that
ballot on the standard as to whether that additional errata needs to be
flagged as a ballot issue.
 
I would like to comment on a general question that came up on one of the
reflectors regarding draft 8; "Is it mandatory to replace the word 'ensure'
with something else?"
 
The short answer is "Yes!"  This is a new rule the IEEE added this year.
Shalom answered the question very well on the reflector where the question
was raised, stating "For IEEE, the term 'ensure' involves legal
responsibility, which has particular significance in safety-related issues."
 
 In the IEEE's review of one of our drafts, they specifically flagged the
word "guarantee" and asked that it be rephrased so as to avoid using that
word.  In the latest IEEE review, they flagged the word "ensure", and
suggested that all usages of the word be replaced with "verify" or some
other wording that is not as legally binding as "ensure".  
 
Ironically, the word "guarantee" has crept back into the LRM after lots of
new Mantis items, but the IEEE only flagged its usage in one place in draft
7a (which I corrected in draft 8-preliminary).  If the committee chairs wish
to do a search for "guarantee" in their respective LRM clauses and suggest
new wording to replace that word, I will make those changes in the final
draft 8.  It might prevent a future IEEE red flag from being raised.
 
One precautionary note on any suggested rewording of "ensure" and
"guarantee" is that the IEEE also flagged the word "must", stating that it
is a deprecated term in IEEE manuals.
 
Each committee should also review the committee lists in the frontmatter of
the LRM.  In particular, please make sure the affiliations are correct.
 
Finally, just as an FYI, there is one global change between draft7a and
draft8-preliminary which did not get marked with colored text or change
bars.  I resequenced the numbering of the footnotes in the Annex A so that
the footnotes are in the order of first appearance in the BNF.  All
references to footnotes in BNF excerpts that are in the main clauses of the
LRM are hyperlinks, and automatically updated to the new footnote numbering.
This change should not require any review by the committees-I just wanted to
make sure everyone was aware of the change in case some of you have
memorized the old footnote numbering ;)
 
 
Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
+1-503-692-0898
www.sutherland-hdl.com


 

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