Greetings, There are a couple of items for the agenda that I would like to have people think about before Monday. The first is that it is time to review the 12 outstanding items on the "extension" list in the Operating Guidelines to come to agreement on what progress we wish to make on them. A copy of the Operating Guidelines is attached to this email for those who missed the earlier meetings. What I request from each of you is to rate each of the 12 items using the following list: No. Extension Assignee(s) Priority Immediacy === ========= =========== ======== ========= i. Data channels ii. Pointers (Kevin C.) iii. Force/release with strengths iv. FSM (original ESS donation) (Cliff C.) v. Extern modules vi. OO (Kevin C.) vii. Data path (if donated by Cadence) viii. Alias (Cliff C., Kevin C.) ix. Inherited declarations x. Multi-clock FSM xi. Inferred reg types (Cliff C., Kevin C.) xii. Process control (Kevin C.) For each item rate the priority (from 1 to 3 - 1 being high and 3 being low) and immediacy (1 to 3 - 1 means it MUST be in System Verilog 3.1, 2 means it would be nice, and 3 means it should slip). Every member of the committee that can rate these items. If there are any particularly contentious issues raised that require us to resolve the order of items we resolve it by voting using formal rules. From the feedback I get we will order these by a weighting based on the priority and immediacy. This should give us a way to attack these items. The second item for the agenda is with respect to the Testbench donation. We have clearly been making slow progress in our analysis and evaluation. It is being detailed but, at this rate, we will not make the end of August. Synopsys has made the offer to perform a more detailed analysis of where the Testbench donation and System Verilog have differences and make some suggestions on how these differences can be resolved (changes to the Testbench syntax and semantics and/or additions to System Verilog). The first review of this will be available on Monday 5 August and, with the committees agreement, I would like us to go through their review. Related to this, I would like us to schedule the 19 August meeting to be an "in-presence" meeting where we can continue the review from Synopsys and hopefully complete it. Synopsys has volunteered to host the meeting in Mountain View. This meeting should be scheduled for the whole day. We can spend the 9-11 on the SV-BC issues and start the SV-EC meeting at 11 and run until 5. Clearly anyone that cannot be present at this meeting can attend by phone and there should be material that can provided by email for the meeting. Regards David David W. Smith Synopsys Scientist Synopsys, Inc. 9205 SW Gemini Drive Beaverton, OR 97008 Voice: 503.520.2715 FAX: 503.643.3361 Email: david.smith@synopsys.com