I'd rather not see a merged group - the overhead to each at this
stage of their development would be high. I think Steve is right
to want the groups to work together but I thought that is what we
has decided to do any way in the SID-OO agreement.
Perhaps a more formal federation under the 200x banner may be the
answer ? Read on ...
> From: Bailey, Stephen A (Steve) [mailto:sbailey@veribest.com]
> Sent: 27 May 1999 21:34
>
> I am personally still struggling to understand the benefits of doing the
SID
> work separate from the OOVHDL work. And, if I extend it just a bit
further,
> we could include the system-level enhancement activities for VHDL 200x.
The
I understand the logistical and marketing problems of having
3 separate groups making significant changes to the capabilities
of the language for the same set of users. However, the separation
of the concerns in the groups makes it easier for each to focus
on their particular aspect (as documented in the historic SID-OO
agreement of FDL'98).
I understand VHDL200x is planned to be a major revision aimed at
the system level. Perhaps it would be best to let the groups
carry on separately and have an umbrella 200x group look at
co-ordinating their entry into the language ?
I think that Steve's concerns are mainly non-technical so perhaps
rather than stress each group separately with working out how it
all fits together, we should have a DASC/VASG 200x planning committee ?
If we already have one, they should have a meeting with the chairs
of the relevant groups.
- Kamal.