In speaking verbally and informally with various people (Toshaan, Paul and Hugh) we have pieced together the way that the OpenPOWER Foundation ISA Workgroup is to be set up, and we have become aware that there may be a mis-match here caused by "otherwise normally expected" provenance of ISA proposals which, from what we can gather, is being built-in to the ISA WG's by-laws.
-From what we understand, individuals with no affiliation (to a Company or Academic Institution) would be prevented from tabling arbitrary ISA extensions (without a sponsor, that is). Given that the OPF ISA WG has to act entirely fairly i.e. in a non-discriminatory fashion towards all proposals, yet also take into account the huge burden of time and responsibility that results in perpetuity from any such inclusion, it is a reasonable balance.
+From what we understand, individuals with no affiliation (to a Company or Academic Institution) would be prevented from tabling arbitrary ISA extensions (without a sponsor, that is). Given that the OPF ISA WG has to act entirely fairly i.e. in a non-discriminatory fashion towards all proposals, yet also take into account the huge burden of time and responsibility that results in perpetuity from any such inclusion, it is a reasonable balance. We understand and respect that proposers should demonstrate the willingness and access to resources sufficient to see through a long-term committment to the OpenPOWER ISA.
Yet at the same time, whilst being perfectly reasonable, we feel that our unique circumstances have not been anticipated. We would therefore welcome some constructive feedback as to how we would go about submitting our work, and also how we can communicate effectively that we are in this for the long haul, and are committed to seeing it through.
projects / libreriscv.git / commitdiff