# Questions
-you applied to the 2022-08 open call from NLnet. We have some questions regarding your project proposal Libre-SOC OpenPOWER ISA WG, but obviously we are incurring some delays due to the deluge of payment requests ;)
+you applied to the 2022-08 open call from NLnet. We have some questions regarding your project proposal Libre-SOC OpenPOWER ISA WG
**
You requested a neat round sum of 100000 euro.
it. I (personally) used to be ok when working out of Taiwan for 3 years
on EUR 1200-1500, and Jacob was in student-subsidised accommodation.
-bottom line: 3 people, at EUR 3,000, is actually only 11 months duration.
+bottom line: 3 people, at EUR 3,000 (which is **1/5th** of the commercial
+rate for quality work of this type), is actually only 11 months duration.
if we include binutils part-time as 0.25 people it's only 10 months.
these are the tasks:
* Compliance Test Suites: there are already thousands of unit tests,
these need to be expanded for the 8/16/32-bit work (thousands, in
each bit-width). Again: several months of work
+* Example algorithms: strncpy, quicksort, insertionsort, UTF-8
+ validation and conversion to UTF-16; more Audio/Video examples - all of
+ these are critically important showcases. Each example chosen
+ can average around 1-2 weeks work. They all help with the
+ critical "justification" which is already underway as part of
+ https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/rfc/ls001/ which already has
+ some of the examples from unit tests.
* Developing and improving the Simulator itself, to confirm correct
functionality: again, several months (this is always ongoing)
* The Test API: this will be a simpler self-contained task to make
EUR 50,000 assuming 3.5 people at EUR 3,000 is actually only 5 months.
realistically that would mean we would actually need to begin the
submission process on the very next cycle! (2022-10E - 2022-12E would
-be more likely, but slightly pushing our luck)
+be more likely but cutting it fine)
**
It would be better for us to achieve this incrementally, as in:
**
I don't have a problem with that, if you are fine with the extra admin
-work :)
+work :) i appreciate it does mean not needing a special EU Auditor,
+and also an opportunity to review, half-way through.
+**
What would work on the legal compliance for the development look
like? Who would be doing that?
+**
-IBM - or more to the point the OPF ISA WG - requesting that all
-contributors sign an "Inbound Patent License Agreement". in our
+The OpenPOWER Foundation - probably using IBM or LinuxFoundation
+Legal Counsel - requesting that all contributors sign an
+"Inbound Patent License Agreement". in our
case there *aren't* any patents, but we still have to sign an
agreement that there aren't any, and, also, that if we *do* create
any patents that those will be assigned to the OPF immediately.
-Perhaps some legal assistance in reviewing that agreement might
-be a good idea?
+There is also a Copyright Assignment requirement (which IBM also had
+to agree to, now that the Power ISA is owned by the OpenPOWER Foundation)
+Perhaps a budget for some legal assistance in reviewing that agreement
+might be a good idea? NLnet has funded this work under its
+"Works for the Public Good" mandate: we don't want to be caught out
+here.
**
How would you manage such a large amount of RFCs, which must
RFCs in-house over the years: this isn't something that's new to
them.
+ultimately, though, by comparison with RISC-V having *seventy*
+unique Technical Working Groups, realistically it is simply
+the Power ISA that has a lot of catching up to do. we will be
+the catalyst that drives that... carefully :)
+
**
Is there infrastructure in place to manage the lifecycle of each RFC?
**
* https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/rfc/
-Example of the cross-referencing so far:
+Example of the cross-referencing and history so far:
* https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/rfc/ls001/
* https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=libreriscv.git;a=history;f=openpower/sv/rfc/ls001.mdwn
How are discussions going to be linked to each RFC?
**
-By a cross-referenced URL in each one, and the standard practice
-of adding a "discussion" page in the wiki if necessary, although
-this is often subsumed by the bugtracker.
+As above example: by a cross-referenced URL in each one, and the
+standard practice of adding a "discussion" page in the wiki if
+necessary, although this is often subsumed by the bugtracker.
**
What are the timelines?
**
-based on 3.5 people, only around 10 months.
+based on 3.5 people? realistically only around 10 months.
+(EUR 50,000 cuts that by half).
+
projects / libreriscv.git / blobdiff