From f72493e409401c80e8959e2be6a073b9be695515 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lkcl Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2022 12:05:00 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] --- nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn | 26 ++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) 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). + -- 2.30.2