Ratification: The final checkbox?

[RISCV Opinion]

There appears to be a perception that the ratification vote is final check box to be ticked before dissemination.

A proclamation of the new standard extension.

Like a signing into Law by governors/Governors-General/presidents/Prime Ministers.

RISCV ratification is far from that.

The ratification is the point at which the Board of Directors and RISCV International Voting Members become accountable.

The BoD and Voting Members have the responsibility to ensure approved/sanctioned/endorsed changes to the ISA are legally and justifiably compliant with our published processes, charter, and applicable laws including non-competitive and non-profit requirements.

The intent is to ensure protection of RISCV International, its non-profit status, and the RISCV ISA and its legal and technical status. Given the likelihood that competitors will challenge not only our extensions but the veracity of the process and lack of bias in achieving and committing to these extensions, the clarity and transparency of the ratification process is vital. 

This becomes particularly challenging in light of

a) recent policy/process changes that have materially affected public representation

b) waivers, that by definition bypass published processes.

c) technical decisions made without rigorous review mechanisms

What makes this effort especially challenging is the lack of prior art/guidance in the area.

We are substantially alone as a serious open-architecture competitor.

Public hostility to those Big Companies harassing the likes of OPENMIPS and OPEN-Solaris  would keep them at bay.

The essentially ceremonial signing of legislation is supported by years of refinement and myriad of civil servant  effort.

Even still, legal challenges are most often raised after signing [in a democracy].

We should expect no less.

So, the ratification is not as simple as a final check-box, though it may still be hard to imaging that as those who have been scrambling to get those boxes checked.

I know that this is not the preferred forum to share this perspective. But, that preferred forum/mailing-list doesn't exist.

Although it may appear that I am providing ammunition for those who would intend to impede our efforts, I do not believe I am in any way doing so.

The big guns are fully aware of how they can attack and are aware of the weaknesses.

The BoD and Voting Members are responsible to ensure they are aware of these issues and are addressing them. Ignorance of their responsibilities is no excuse.

So, in closing we are dependant upon the insight, care and wisdom of our leaders.

We should be supporting them in every way possible because literally it is life and death to our organization.