Subject: Minutes of 7/25/02 Meeting
From: Tom Fitzpatrick (fitz@co-design.com)
Date: Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:24:51 PDT
Hi All,
My thanks to Erich Marschner and Henry Cox for taking the minutes. Here they
are:
Attendance Legend:
x = attended
- = missed
r = represented
. = not yet a member
[x.] Faisal Haque (Cisco, Chairman)
[rx] Tom Fitzpatrick (Co-Design, Co-Chair)
[xr] Tom Anderson (0-in)
[-x] Jason Andrews (Axis)
[-x] Roy Armoni (Intel)
[xx] Gail Dagan (Intel)
[xx] Simon Davidmann (Co-Design)
[x.] Surrendra Dudani (Synopsys)
[rx] Cindy Eisner (IBM)
[xx] Peter Flake (Co-Design)
[rx] Harry Foster (Verplex)
[x-] Richard Ho (0-in)
[x-] Adam Krolnik (LSI)
[-x] David Lacey (HP, OVL Chairman)
[xx] Joseph Lu (Sun)
[xx] Erich Marschner (Cadence)
[-x] Steve Meier (Synopsys)
[-x] Paul Menchini (Menchini & Associates)
[xx] Prakash Narain (Real Intent)
[x-] Rajeev Ranjan (Real Intent)
[x.] Ambar Sarkar (Paradigm Works)
[-x] Andrew Seawright (0-in)
[xx] Bassam Tabbara (Novas)
||
|+- 7/9/02
+-- 7/25/02
Voting:
======
FH: Continue to use existing scheme
PN: Please recount what it is
FH: 3 of 4 meetings to vote; 75% overall; major issues by company; minor
issues by person
PN: how do we decide major/minor? FH: I will decide.
EM: what about initial condition?
FH: everyone can vote for the first 4 meetings
EM: allow anyone to force an issue to be considered major
- motion made, seconded, accepted unanimously
DAS Working Group:
================
FH: Meeting of TCC decided to create small group for efficiency
FH: DWG = Faisal, Harry, Tom, Steve, Prakash, Erich
FH: SV-AC will create reqs. for DWG, will review and approve DWG proposal
FH: DWG is a closed group - but everyone will have a chance to review,
drive reqs.
SD: what about donations?
RH: how were these people chosen, and what were the criteria?
FH: based on ability to contribute, chosen by TCC
RH: other companies are also able to contribute and would like to
participate
FH: should address that issue to Vassilios
AK: what is the deadline for producing something from WG?
FH: from SV-AC, a final draft by January; for DWG, a draft by early November
AK: so nothing from now until November?
PN: need to work on requirements in this group in the mean time
SD: how long are you allowing for (a) reqs to be defined, (b)
donations/design, (c) review
FH: one month for reqs., 8 weeks for LRM development, some additional
time for WG review
AS: are the requirements subject to change during donation/development
period?
PN: deadline for requirements is end of July 2002; we'll put together a
master list at that point
PN: the LRM may not address all requirements
FH: one of the deliverables from this committee is a requirements master
list
BT: can we add a milestone - the DWG should tell the SV-AC how they plan
to implement each req.
BT: this would allow preliminary feedback
EM: this is an excellent suggestion - the SV-AC should be involved as
much as possible in the design
EM: one caveat - let's not just focus on syntax, but also discuss
semantic foundation decisions
BT: don't need a lot of checkpoints, but one preview of the approach(es)
to be taken should occur
AS: also important to review/reprioritize requirements as we start to design
EM: yes, SV-AC should review subset of reqs the DWG will address, to
identify/resolve conflicts
PN: the DWG should come up with a date when it will present the reqs.
subset for review
PN: this date is dependent upon when the SV-AC firms up the reqs. - will
take 4-5 wks after that
SD: by what date (after reqs. are stabilized) do you want donations to
be complete?
PN: donate now - donations will become resources for design
EM: Simon's concern is understandable, since donations become property
of Accellera whether used/not
FH: we have a tight schedule ....
SD: yes, but no one is going to donate until they understand the
requirements
SD: when will requirements be ready by, and when will you shut the door
on donations?
PN/EM: discussion about when to start donations (Erich trying to address
Simon's issue)
SD: we should distinguish between a donation and a suggestion
PN: no, there are IP issues ...
SD: the process to donate is not a complex one (for a small company)
SD: but what time period will we have to decide *whether* we want to
participate?
FH: we will need to trade off our schedule vs. minimizing donations
SD: it is better to take existing proven technology than design
something new
PN: so all you are looking for is a deadline?
SD: yes, what is the timeframe?
PN: we can discuss this and answer later
PN/EM: discussion about answering questions about donation policy in
this committee
FH: two questions: articulation of donation process, and what is the
deadline
BT: also would be helpful to explain distinction between suggestion and
donation
TA: in the FVTC a donation acknowledged that there was significant IP
being donated
BT: so what Simon is talking about it is a significant one
TA: in FVTC apparently those that were not used reverted to original owners
FH: will get Vassilios to elaborate on the first; the second will be
answered by the DWG
Deliverables for SV-AC:
==================
FH: two: master list of requirements, and approved LRM for Design
Assertions Subset of SV
AK: what comes out of DWG
FH: yes, but reviewed and approved
FH: need an owner for requirements master list
PN: propose Tom
HC: Tom actually volunteered
(vote - approved)
AK: one question about LRM - what will it contain?
PN: like last time
AK: is that the only content?
AK: e.g., Sugar definition included a formal semantic specification -
will this LRM do so also?
AS: isn't this a part of requirements definition process? should
require a formal spec if it is wanted
AK: so we should define what the requirements apply to the LRM format
and contents also
BT/PN/etc. need to define requirements for LRM
EM: the SV-AC needs to prioritize the master list of requirements somehow
SD: should collect all requirements first - remove duplicates - and then
prioritize
PN: we should articulate a process for assigning priorities
FH: so process is (a) compile, (b) prioritize), (c) select "common
subset" of requirements
FH: will be gone month of August; Tom Fitzpatrick will run meetings in
August
??: doesn't chair cast deciding vote?
FH: I will be available by email to cast tie-breaking votes
Next Meeting(s):
============
FH: frequency of meetings? more frequent in August?
PN: difficult to meet more than once a week
PN: need to meet weekly in August - 9-11am PDT (12-2pm EDT) every Thursday
FH: next meeting chaired by Tom - starting to compile/review requirements
Process:
- submit requirements by July 31, with rationale for each one
- present/discuss each set of requirements in meetings in August - shoot
for 3 presentations each meeting
- understand, dissect, and coordinate requirements to create a master
list by end of August
- vote on master list to prioritize
Next meeting:
Thursday, 8/1
9am-11am PDT
405-244-5555 x4615
Thanks,
-Tom
------------------------------------------------------
Tom Fitzpatrick
Director of Technical Marketing
Co-Design Automation, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------
Email: fitz@co-design.com Mobile: (978)337-7641
Tel: (978)448-8797 Fax: (561)594-3946
Web: www.co-design.com
www.superlog.org
------------------------------------------------------
SUPERLOG = Faster, Smarter Verilog
------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:26:32 PDT