The results of the ballot are:
Affirmative votes: 74
Negative votes: 3
Abstentions: 10
Votes returned: 86%
Abstention votes: 11%
Affirmative votes: 96%
In keeping with the rules of the Design Automation Standards Committee
(DASC) of the IEEE Computer Society, ALL comments whether they are from
negative ballots or affirmative ballots, whether they are from qualified
balloters or informational balloters must be addressed. The DPC Working
Group addressed all the comments.
I would like to thank the 1481 DPC Working Group for their effort to address
all issues raised in the first review of the document. 600 individual items
were addressed by the group in the first review making draft 1.1 a much more
solid work.
There were no additional negative comments to the draft 1.1, we can
therefore move to the certification phase of standardization. Based on the
ballots returned, we exceeded the need to have more than 75% returned, we
exceeded the need to have more than 75% approve and we came under the need
to have fewer than 30% abstain from voting.
Negative Ballots
================
I would like to comment on the negative ballots.
Negative Ballot #1
1. see my email to DPC group about BNF analysis
A review of http://eda.org/vi/dpc/dpc-list.archive/hm/author.html#start
and
http://eda.org/vi/dpc/dpcwg.archive/hm/author.html#start does not show an
email communication to the group which would allow us to unambiguously
respond to the negative ballot. In follow-up inquiries with the balloter we
understand they would like to see the BNF productions in one consolidated
location. This was not done for the specification. Although this might be
nice, it was felt by the working group the BNF productions within the
specification were sufficient and complete.
Negative Ballot #2
1. Change header files to indicate by their name that they belong to DPCS.
Response: Done. The desired changes were made.
2. SPEF needs to support the following:
a. coupling capacitances between interconnect nets at
feature sizes less than .35u.
Response: This is a part of the specification.
b. method for more info about parasitic resistors, such as
w, l and model cards to account for metal resistances
Response: This was not added to the specification and
is noted as an enhancement request.
3. Need to have more detailed calculation of activity dependent
delays.
Response: This is supported for power and we have taken this
comment as an enhancement for timing.
Negative Ballot #3
There were numerous comments from a sub-group chair which he addressed
through the ballot review process. All comments were satisfied.
Unfortunately, his re-circulation ballot was not received by the IEEE at the
close of the ballot. Since the ballot passes without his vote changing from
negative to affirmative, it will stand as is. However, I would like to
ensure the full ballot group that no issues remained for him that would
prevent him to change his vote from negative to affirmative.
Additional Comments
===================
We received an additional comment during the reciculation. A non-normative
portion of the specification (an example) is in error. This is being
reviewed by the working group and an Issue Report will be opened to track it
to ensure it is corrected in subsequent updates.
-Dennis
Chair, IEEE 1481 Working Group
-- Dennis Brophy Email: dennisb@model.com Director of Strategic Business Development Phone: +1 (503) 526-1694 Model Technology Inc. Fax: +1 (503) 526-5473 10450 SW Nimbus Ave, Suite R Mobile: +1 (503) 706-8987 Portland, OR 97223-4347 Home Fax: +1 (503) 579-2664