Open Core Protocol International Partnership Governing ... - OCP-IP

said they could start with the resources they had from Texas Instruments and Toshiba. Jamesasked if they needed to get an answer from everyone, or could they start moving forward. Iansaid that before engaging in work, Mark needed to redo his Statement of Work, including hisassumptions for specific for contributions. Ian said that it might take a couple of weeks to tiedown CoWare and Synopsys, and that by then Nokia should have a plan also.Drew stated that configuration-dependant testing was not one of Mark’s skills. James said thatthe SLD WG had added pre-release testing into the kit last year. James said that there was nodecent quality regression for the adapter code though. Ian said that the responsibility for thiswas not squarely on James as the architect and Mark as the manager. Ian told James to prodhim if James ever needed any help developing a new SoW with Mark. Ian said the onlychallenge he saw was redoing the Statement of Work into something that can be practicallyimplemented with multiple collaborations. Ian asked James if this approach was unreasonable.James said this was not and that the SLD WG should remain the arbiter. James said thatnumerous day-to-day technical decisions would need to be made but that all major decisionswould be made in the SLD WG.AI (James/Mark): Provide recommendation to the GSC on how TLM work can bereapportioned and billed for and what the expectations are from the different contributors.(November 29, 2007)James said it would be difficult to detail a level of legal protection in the revised Statement ofWork. Drew told James that Sonics’ was proposing to contribute section 1.1.3 of the proposal.James said that they would need Nokia and Synopsys to tell them what their positions were assoon as possible. James said that a new Statement of Work in three weeks could be tricky asMark would not be back from vacation until November 20 th . James restated that he wasconcerned about getting an invoice from OCP-IP before the end of the year. Ian told James thatthe GSC would redistribute the revised Statement of Work, get formal approval and then billTexas Instruments. Ian said that this project was a hybrid that OCP had never done before, butthat it was a very good thing and appeared doable. Ian said that, conceptually, they knew whateveryone was doing. Ian said that the SLD WG has had a very high-quality product for a numberof years. James said that people inside OSCI listened to what OCP had to say, because theyhad been doing it for a long time. Ian said that by the end of 2008, OCP-IP would have thehighest quality kits in the world with successful definition and implementation of this proposednew SoW and work.Functional Verification Working Group StatusSteve McMaster joined the meeting at 9:37 A.M. PST.Steve addressed the Functional Verification Working Group’s (FVWG) recent activities. Stevesaid that the main thing the FVWG had been working on was the performance standard. Stevesaid the FVWG had discussions with the SLD WG early in the year. Steve said that they hadoriginally planned on having something in September, but that they were currently not makingmuch progress. Steve told the group that they had agreed on basic concepts, generated a list ofthings they wanted to cover and sent it to other working groups, but not much feedback had beenreceived. Steve said that one area that was not covered was throughput. Steve said that he hadsent out a discussion of throughput, but that he had gotten even less feedback on this documentthan he had on the performance standards. Steve said the FVWG would not implement anythingwithout receiving feedback first. James asked if by throughput Steve meant bandwidth. Jamessaid that he had read the proposal, but had not yet sent feedback. Steve said he was talkingabout how much could actually be pushed through the system. Steve said that what was in therecurrently should be covering latency, the expected delays and the minimum and maximum onewanted to allow for transaction phases. James said that latency was in there, but bandwidth wasnot. Drew said that he was trying to get the SWG to provide feedback to the FVWG on theperformance measurements. Drew said that Steve should get at least one piece of feedback bynext week. Vesa said that he had sent a review of the document already to Steve.OCP-IP CONFIDENTIALGoverning Steering Committee Meeting Minutes 11/8/2007Page 9 of 22