(no commit message)

diff --git a/nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn b/nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn
index 38585d15235acf0548bd30375bdd0ef16b84106b..ea8974849f31c5383757b5029688d89f19006e86 100644 (file)
--- a/nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn
@@ -13,7 +13,8 @@ person are inadequate to attract the quality we need, and had to double
 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.
 
-   3 people, at EUR 3,000, is actually only 11 months duration
+bottom line: 3 people, at EUR 3,000, 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:
 
@@ -22,7 +23,7 @@ these are the tasks:
   prepare and answer questions.
 * preparation (and revision) of RFCs: although they are templatable
   and partial cut/paste from the wiki the revisions are not, needing
-  ongoing feedback.  plus, we will need approximately 25 RFCs.
+  ongoing feedback.  plus, we will need approximately 20-25 RFCs.
 * 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
@@ -43,10 +44,68 @@ literally the first people to use it.
 
 
 
-    A request for 100k is very large, and the timelines are pretty long too. Can we not take it step by step? It would be better for us to achieve this incrementally, as in: start with a smaller amount for meeting submission criteria for the block of instructions, deliver initial code, tests, documentation - and when more budget is needed, a new chunk is added.
+    A request for 100k is very large, and the timelines are
+    pretty long too.
 
-What would work on the legal compliance for the development look like? Who would be doing that?
+yes and no. if we assume 3 people (one junior editor, two and a half
+programmers: simulator, unit tests, binutils) it actually doesn't go far.
 
-How would you manage such a large amount of RFCs, which must be perceived as a denial of service at the WG? Is there infrastructure in place to manage the lifecycle of each RFC? How are discussions going to be linked to each RFC?
+   Can we not take it step by step?
+
+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)
+
+   It would be better for us to achieve this incrementally, as in:
+   start with a smaller amount for meeting submission criteria for
+   the block of instructions, deliver initial code, tests,
+   documentation - and when more budget is needed, a new chunk is added.
+
+I don't have a problem with that, if you are fine with the extra admin
+work :)
+
+    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
+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?
+
+    How would you manage such a large amount of RFCs, which must
+    be perceived as a denial of service at the WG?
+
+carefully!  we have been warning them consistently and persistently
+for 24 months.  each RFC when it gets to the "Presentation as
+actual Changes" stage, will be passed through to compiler and
+hardware experts for their consideration.  IBM has had many many
+RFCs in-house over the years: this isn't something that's new to
+them.
+
+    Is there infrastructure in place to manage the lifecycle of each RFC?
+
+yes.  the bugtracker, wiki, and mailing list, and the RFCs themselves
+are in the git repository that's behind the wiki.  full cross-referencing
+in each has been found over a 4 year period of managing this project.
+Example:
+
+* https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/rfc/ls001/
+* https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=libreriscv.git;a=history;f=openpower/sv/rfc/ls001.mdwn
+* https://lists.libre-soc.org/pipermail/libre-soc-dev/2022-October/005344.html
+* https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=924, note the discussion
+* https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/rfc/ls001/discussion/
+
+    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.
+
+    What are the timelines?
+
+based on 3.5 people, only around 10 months.
 
-What are the timelines? Look forward to hearing from you.