Another Standard Forthcoming in 2011

In my most recent post I highlighted two Standards that are scheduled to be released in 2011, viz., UVM from Accellera and SystemC from the IEEE P1666 Working Group (WG).  In this post, I’ll focus on another Standard that will be put to a vote (and presumably approved) in 2011.  The Standard is the “e” language standard developed by the IEEE P1647 WG, chaired by Darren Galpin.

Darren was kind enough to give me a list of new features in the upcoming P1647 release with a brief explanation for each feature.  Rather than try to rephrase his excellent summary, I will use Darren’s list almost verbatim with only light editing:

1.  Define-As-Computed Macros. This capability allows the definition of a new language construct using an action block to build the replacement code. It is included in the new revision requirements due to a direct user request.

2.  Interface Ports. The intent here is to support ports of standard transaction level model (TLM) interfaces (originally developed by OSCI as part of SystemC).

3.  Named Checks. Every check statement can be uniquely tagged with a name. This allows coverage to be collected automatically on checks, and coverage can be extended by constraints based on the name.

4.  Named Constraints. Every constraint can be uniquely tagged with a name, which allows individual constraints to be overridden by other higher-level constraints, or perhaps switched off if certain behavior is not desired.

5.  Parameterized Types. This allows template types in which you can define generic structs and units that are parameterized by type. They can be instantiated later by giving specific types as actual parameters.

6.  Real Data Type. This provides support for real numbers.

7.  Type Constraints. These restrict the declared type of a field to one of its kind, or as subtypes for a given context.

A “Ballot Group” to vote on the LRM developed by the P1647 WG was recently formed. This Ballot group consists of 30 individuals from around the world, all of whom signed up as to vote either because they use e, develop e-based tools, or because of a general interest in the standard. Once a few minor editorial changes are made to the P1647 LRM, the first month-long round of the ballot will take place.

At this point in an IEEE-literate world, I could stop the discussion and move onto another topic.  However, I find that most people (including not a few participants in IEEE activities) are baffled by the IEEE voting rules. Thus, it probably makes sense to add some explanation in this context.

The simplest way to gain insight here is to remember the “75/75 rule”.  For any standard at least 75% of registered voters in a Ballot Group must actually vote. Of that 75+% of registered voters, at least 75% must vote to approve the draft standard. In the case of P1647, this high voting bar means that at least 23 of the 30 individuals registered to vote must actually cast a vote.  Assuming that exactly 23 votes were received, 18 would have to be positive for the process to proceed.  Note that any voters, who vote negatively, must give a reason for their negative vote.

After the first ballot, assuming that the 75/75 rule is satisfied, then any negative comments made during the first round of voting must be addressed. This “addressing” does not necessarily mean “rectifying”, although that is, of course, always a good outcome.

Once all of the issues raised in the first round of balloting have been addressed, a second (once again, month long) “recirculation” ballot will be held. During this recirculation ballot, members of the Ballot Group will be able to either change their initial vote, or to vote for the first time.  If at the end of this second ballot, at least 75% of the members of the Ballot Group have cast a positive vote (either unchanged from the first round, changed  to positive in the second round, or cast for the first time as a positive vote in the second round), then the draft Standard will go on to “higher level” committees in the IEEE, where, barring unforeseen issues, the Standard will be made official.

One final point to raise concerns who casts the votes in these sorts of elections, or, rather, whom the voters represent when voting. The answer is “it depends”.   Working Groups in the IEEE Standards Association may be formed at “individual” or “entity” based.  In the former case, members are individual experts, and represent themselves when making decisions (of course, what their employers want may also be in the back of their minds).  In the entity-based WG case, the members of the WG all represent an “entity”– a corporation, an association, a university etc.  In such an entity-based WG, all actions are taken by representatives of the entities that are members of the WG.

I discussed this difference previously, so I will not go any deeper into the different types of IEEE Working Groups.  However, this difference is relevant to this post, since the simple rule is that a Ballot Group formed to vote on a draft Standard that was developed by an individual-based WG (like P1647) will be made up of individuals.  Not surprisingly, a Ballot Group formed to vote on a draft standard that was produced by an entity-based WG will be composed of representatives of entities (not limited to those entities that participated in the WG).

In my next post I shall examine an IEEE Working Group– the P1734 IP Quality WG– that in the near future will be forming an entity-based Ballot Group with an eye to approval and release in 2011.