From: Francoise Martinolle (fm@cadence.com)
Date: Mon Jan 12 2004 - 11:21:45 PST
A few questions:
1. At various states of your process flow state machine, there is an action
of HOLD which is mentioned. Can you describe what would be the reasons for
an action of HOLD? Does it mean it would be postponed to another version of
the standard? Does it mean that it is in hold until a future vote?
2. In your process flow description, there is no notion of time, neither
mention of a schedule for creating a proposal, nor references to certain
milestones that may have to do with creating the next revision of the standard.
Is this intentional? Wouldn't be useful to insert some time limit for an
enhancement to be kept alive so that a proposal can be generated within
some reasonable time or some crossing time points with a standard overall
milestone.
There are a few reasons for this:
a) This can help accelerate the standardization process (but also can be
dangerous if we don't ensure that proposals are sound).
b) It can ensure that late proposals are not included in the standard which
can potentially avoid some inconsistency in the standard for lack of review
time.
3. State of a proposal: it would be good to make sure that the database web
page represents all the possible final or intermediate states of the
process flow.
Francoise
'
At 12:43 PM 12/15/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>----- Begin Included Message -----
>
> >From kurt Thu Dec 11 11:21:34 2003
>Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:21:34 -0600 (CST)
>From: Kurt Baty <kurt>
>To: btf@boyd.com
>Subject: draft of Process Flow Specification
>Cc: kurt
>
>
>For review for the BTF meeting on monday a draft of:
>
> Process Flow Specification
>
>from your friendly EGG sub-committee, is at:
>
> http://24.242.132.51/draft_flow_spec.pdf
>
>
> kurt
>
>
>
>----- End Included Message -----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jan 12 2004 - 11:10:07 PST
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.