From fec0829c220cde2a9fed31d230ce402ac906290a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lkcl Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2022 11:55:09 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] --- nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn b/nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn index ea8974849..dc50eb14a 100644 --- a/nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn +++ b/nlnet_2022_opf_isa_wg/discussion.mdwn @@ -2,10 +2,12 @@ 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 requested a neat round sum of 100000 euro. Can you provide some more detail on how you arrived at this amount? Could you provide a breakdown of the main tasks, and the associated effort? What rates did you use? +** last question first: we've learned (painfully, by losing opportunities and team members) that the prior rates which were around EUR 1500 per @@ -35,17 +37,19 @@ these are the tasks: * binutils needs ongoing updates, an estimated budget covering 10-14 weeks would be good. +** Is there meanwhile news on the requirements of IBM and the ISA WG? +** somewhat. the page is now open - https://openpower.foundation/isarfc/ - and they have prepared a process/procedure document (legally required to be followed, under the OPF's ByLaws), which is adapting as we're literally the first people to use it. - - +** A request for 100k is very large, and the timelines are pretty long too. +** 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. @@ -57,10 +61,12 @@ 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 :) @@ -76,8 +82,10 @@ 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 @@ -86,12 +94,20 @@ 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: + +then there is also the "main" page tracking *all* RFCs (which will +get its own bugreport at some point) + +* https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/rfc/ + +Example of the cross-referencing 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 @@ -99,13 +115,17 @@ Example: * 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. -- 2.30.2