Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2009-04-13

Voice quality problems affecting some participants resulted in the start of the meeting being delayed while the meeting moved to an alternative call bridge. The chair is grateful to Brad for offering the ALU bridge for this meeting.

Meeting called to order at 10:55 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Eric Cormack (joined 10:59)
Ian McIntosh
Tim Pender
Carl Walker
Adam Ley
Heiko Ehrenberg
Brad Van Treuren

Patrick Au
Peter Horwood

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

4/06/2009 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 6th April:
  • No corrections noted.
  • Heiko moved to approve, Brad seconded, no objections.

3. Review old action items

  • Adam proposed we cover the following at the next meeting:
    • Establish consensus on goals and constraints
    • What are we trying to achieve?
    • What restrictions are we faced with?
  • Establish whether TRST needs to be addressed as requirements in the ATCA specification if it is not going to be managed globally (All)
  • Adam review ATCA standard document for FRU's states
  • Patrick contact Cadence for EDA support person.
  • All to consider what data items are missing from Data Elements diagram
  • All: do we feel SJTAG is requiring a new test language to obtain the information needed for diagnostics or is STAPL/SVF sufficient?
    see also Gunnar's presentation, in particular the new information he'd be looking for in a test language (http://files.sjtag.org/Ericsson-Nov2006/STAPL-Ideas.pdf)
  • Adam: (continue) revise wording of section 5 - CANCELLED
  • Carl W/Andrew: Set up conference call to organise review of Vol. 3 - Ongoing
  • Andrew: Make contact with VXI Consortium/Charles Greenberg. - Ongoing
  • Ian/Brad: Draft "straw man" Volume 4 for review - Ongoing
  • All: Review "Role of Languages" in White Paper Volume 4 - Ongoing
  • All: Consider structure/content of survey - Ongoing
  • Harrison: Virtual system exploiting Configuration/Tuning/Instrumentation and Root Cause Analysis/Failure Mode Analysis Use Cases. - Ongoing
  • Brad: Virtual system exploiting POST and BIST Use Cases. - Ongoing
  • Ian: Virtual system exploiting Environmental Stress Test Use Cases. - Ongoing
  • Adam: Prepare revised text for section 5 of Operating Procedures, as discussed 6th Apr (replaces previous action). - COMPLETE.
  • Ian: Amend section 3.1 of Operating Procedures as discussed 6th Apr. - COMPLETE.

4. Discussion Topics

    1. Group Operating Procedures
      • [Ian] Adam has applied the changes to the wiki in respect of Section 5 and I've made the minor amendment to Section 3.1.
      • [Ian] There are couple of additional items that emerged over the past few days; Brad forwarded to me an e-mail that the P1687 group were sent regarding disclosure of material relating to the draft standard, then while following up on that, I found that there is now a boilerplate text for standards group procedures.
      • [Ian] Brad started a thread in the Working Group Administration section of the forums to discuss the p1687 e-mail.
        There's maybe less to this than I initially thought: Adam has responded noting that there is a principle of openness expected by the IEEE in standards development. It was access to minutes that was my biggest concern but the TTSC procedures and Standards Board Manual both state that minutes should be available to anyone.
      • [Brad] But you have to think about the words that are there: It says "available to anyone who asks". By putting the minutes on the website, people do not have to ask for access.
      • [Adam] I'd disagree with that. In order to load a web page the user is making a specific request. If there's an implication that those making the requests should be known, then we don't do that, but I don't think that is actually expected anywhere.
      • [Brad] OK, you make a strong argument there.
      • [Ian] If it were necessary, we could redirect page requests to a form that records e-mail addresses or similar.
      • [Adam] We are not under an IEEE regime until we have an approved PAR, so we do not need to take immediate action in any case.
      • [Ian] The other thing I wanted to take out of this was just to state for the record that the draft standard, under IEEE copyright, should not be disseminated without the groups approval. Just so we're all clear on that for when the time comes.
      • [Adam] We don't have an approved IEEE PAR, we don't really have to worry about IEEE Copyright yet. A lot like the original JTAG group: They got to a standard 2.0 before going under the IEEE. Even a white paper released before our PAR is approved, for example, should be available for public viewing, even if its content will become part of a draft 0.1 version of an SJTAG standard.
      • [Ian] I see our white paper as more of a discussion document rather than something that could flow directly into a draft standard, but on the subject of the white paper, Brad had another concern?
      • [Brad] I was following up on some of the comments you'd raised, Ian. You noted that business is different now. Everything is based on a Return on Investment (ROI) - What is our ROI for people to get involved with SJTAG? We're all individuals here but there must be some benefit for our companies to continue to invest our time supporting this activity. There must be some of those benefits that can be used to show others why they should be part of this group.
      • [Brad] At the moment maybe less that one per cent of the community is actively participating in the SJTAG effort. I want to see how we could use the white paper to leverage a higher percentage level of participation. But I meant this to be a possible subject for another day.
      • [Ian] OK, so getting back to our procedures. We now have this Baseline Procedures document that the Standards Board Manual points to. There are quite a few mandatory clauses in there, but this is a very new document and I'm not sure that it maps all that well to even the current TTSC procedures.
      • [Brad] Yes, it seems very different to what was discussed at the Working Group Chairs meeting at ITC; It was said there's some kind of template, but I didn't think it would be as mandatory as this document is.
      • [Ian] At this point, I guess we are still at liberty to choose whether we try to harmonise with this boilerplate or operate with our own procedures for now.
      • [Brad] I would recommended deferring any attempt to harmonise, as I would expect the template to go through a number of changes between now and when we submit our PAR. Trying to keep aligned may be more effort than it is worth.
      • [Ian] I think I would agree.
      • [Brad] Should we formally record that? I'll make a motion to defer aligning with the Baseline Working Group Policies and Procedures until our PAR is approved.
      • [Eric] I'll second that motion.
      • [Ian] Any comments / objections?
      • {None voiced}
      • [Ian] Since there are none, the motion is carried and we will revisit this issue once we have an approved PAR.
      • [Ian] Now let's review the Operating Procedures as we have them defined (http://wiki.sjtag.org/index.php?title=Operating_Procedures)
      • [Ian] All the recommended changes are incorporated now. Does anyone have any further comments or revisions?
      • [Heiko] I think they look good for now
      • [Brad] I agree; I make a motion to accept the Operating Procedures as presented.
      • [Heiko] I second.
      • [Ian] Any objections?
      • {None voiced}
      • [Ian] OK, the motion is carried and we now have our Operating Procedures in place.


  1. 2009 Survey
    • [Ian] I'm assuming that we've not really made any progress on this topic? I haven't found much time to think about the virtual system, and I haven't seen anything from Harrison. Brad, I gather you've also been too busy?
    • [Brad] Yes, that's correct.
    • [Ian] We need to move forward with this; I'd like to take work on this offline rather than spending too much time in our meetings on this. There are better ways we could be using this hour.
    • [Brad] It's the chair's prerogative to form subcommittees for specific tasks.
    • [Ian] OK, so a survey subcommittee. I'll probably need to pull together any web forms, and Brad I guess you should be involved?
    • [Brad] Yes, I want to be part of that. I want the survey to be useful to us and provide direction for our work.
    • [Ian] Is anybody else interested in joining a team working on the survey?
    • {Silence}
    • [Ian] If not, then I guess it will be just me and Brad. We'll work on this over the next couple of weeks and get back to the group with a proposal for discussion. {ACTION}

5. Schedule next meeting

Schedule for April 2009:
Monday Apr. 20, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT
Monday Apr. 27, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT
  • [Heiko] Should we set the schedule for May now?
  • [Ian] Good point - this is probably the right time to do that.
  • [Ian] The natural order is 4th, 11th, 18th and 25th; Are there holidays in there that will cause problems?
  • [Tim] 25th is Memorial Day; Holiday for everyone in US.
  • [Ian] OK, sounds like we should skip May 25th then. We haven't missed a Monday this year so far, so maybe we're due a week off!
  • [Brad] Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.
Schedule for May 2009:
Monday May 4, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT
Monday May 11, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT
Monday May 18, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT

6. Any other business

  • [Ian] We should have a new member for next week. Anthony Sparks has nominated Brian Erickson to represent JTAG Technologies. Anthony was just never finding the time to attend these meetings.
  • [Brad] I'm not sure, but I think Anthony may have introduced me to Brian.
  • [Ian] I've noticed some things on A-Toggle, 1149.8.1, going round recently; I'm guessing it's not something we need to worry too much about. Any opinions?
  • {None voiced}

7. Review new action items

  • Brad/Ian - Prepare draft survey for review by group.

8. Adjourn

Moved to adjourn at 11:32 AM EDT by Eric, seconded by Brad.

Thanks to Heiko for supplying additional notes this week.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh