From: lkcl <lkcl@web>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2022 11:05:00 +0000 (+0100)
Subject: (no commit message)
X-Git-Tag: opf_rfc_ls005_v1~165
X-Git-Url: https://git.libre-soc.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=f72493e409401c80e8959e2be6a073b9be695515;p=libreriscv.git

---

diff --git a/nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn b/nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn
index 27821f237..4f48c6206 100644
--- a/nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ programmers: simulator, unit tests, binutils) it actually doesn't go far.
 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:
@@ -71,7 +71,8 @@ be more likely, but slightly pushing our luck)
 **
 
 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?
@@ -81,8 +82,10 @@ 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?
+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
@@ -96,6 +99,11 @@ 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.
 
+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?
 **
@@ -121,13 +129,15 @@ Example of the cross-referencing so far:
     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).
+