Minutes of OOVHDL meeting on 9 June 2000

Subject: Minutes of OOVHDL meeting on 9 June 2000
From: Peter J. Ashenden (petera@cs.adelaide.edu.au)
Date: Sun Jun 18 2000 - 23:45:37 PDT

Minutes of the meeting of the IEEE DASC OOVHDL Working Group
at Los Angeles Marriott Downtown, 9 June 2000

Present:

Peter Ashenden, U Adelaide (Co-Chair) <petera@cs.adelaide.edu.au>
John Willis, FTL Systems <jwillis@ftlsys.com>
Paul Menchini, ESL <mench@mench.com>
Bob Klenke, VCU <rhklenke@vcu.edu>
Jim Heaton, JHA <jim.heaton@ieee.org>
Gabe Moretti, EDN <gabe@dimensional.com>
Steve Schulz, TI <ses@ti.com>
Dave Barton, AverStar <dlb@averstar.com>
John Hillawi, DA Solutions <hillawi@eda.org>
Noelle Humenick, IEEE Standards (Observer) <n.humenick@ieee.org>

Agenda:

1. SUAVE/Objective-VHDL vote
2. Other business
3. Next meeting

The meeting opened at 2:00pm.

1. SUAVE/Objective-VHDL vote

Peter summarized the outcome of the earlier vote and outlined the ambiguity
of the result.

Motion (Willis/Menchini): That the Working Group reballot with a set of
questions to decide which proposal to adopt.

Discussion: The set of questions to be determined as a separate motion.

The motion was carried unanimously.

Motion (Menchini/Willis): That the questions be as follows:

  1. Which strawman should be adopted as the basis for work towards a
     standard: SUAVE or Objective-VHDL?

  2. Should entity/architecture inheritance be considered for
     standardization?

  3. Should genericity be considered for standardization?

Discussion: There was discussion on whether 2 and 3 should be conditional
upon 1, and whether 2 or 3 should be asked at all.

Amendment: That only question 1 be voted upon; questions 2 and 3 to be
mentioned in accompanying text, indicating that the working group can
consider them as issues for standardization once the stawman has been
decided upon. The amendment was accepted by the proposers.

Discussion: The new vote should be open to all eligible voters according to
the review process, not just to those who voted in the initial vote.

The motion was carried unanimously.

There was discussion on what to do if the vote is tied. The concensus was
to consider that if the situation arises. A further question was what
majority is required: 70% or 50%+. The concensus was simple majority:
50%+.

Action: Peter will prepare a draft call for votes and have Wolfgang Nebel
review it before posting to the email list.

2. Other business

Steve asked how long until the draft standard would be ready? Peter
responded that it would depend on what features were chosen for inclusion.

Bob asked whether the standard would be have a dot number or a distinct
number from 1076. Action: Noelle agreed to check whether IEEE rules allow
a Trial Use standard to be dot numbered.

Bob asked whether, if the SID Working Group winds down, communications
issues would be considered as part of OOVHDL. Jim responded that the
common membership of the two working groups would resolve the question
should it arise.

3. Next meeting

In conjunction with FDL in Tuebingen, Germany, 4-8 September.

The meeting closed at 3:00pm. 

-- 
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden              Email: petera@cs.adelaide.edu.au
Dept. Computer Science                    peter.ashenden@acm.org
University of Adelaide                    peter.ashenden@computer.org
Adelaide, SA 5005                  Phone: +61 8 8303 4477
Australia                          Fax:   +61 8 8303 4366

WWW: http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~petera  (includes PGP public key)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Jun 18 2000 - 23:47:04 PDT