back

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

Attendees:

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

Meeting 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.
back