Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2011-01-10

Meeting called to order: 10:36 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Eric Cormack
Patrick Au
Ian McIntosh
Heiko Ehrenberg
Adam Ley
Carl Walker
Tim Pender
Brian Erickson
Peter Horwood
Brad Van Treuren (joined 11:00)

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

12/13/2010 minutes:

  • Updated draft circulated on 12/13/2010.
  • No corrections noted.
  • Brian moved to approve, seconded by Eric, no objections or abstentions.

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?
  • All to consider what data items are missing from Data Elements diagram - CANCELLED
  • 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
  • Ian/Brad: Draft "straw man" Volume 4 for review - CANCELLED
  • All: Review "Role of Languages" in White Paper Volume 4 - CANCELLED
  • All: Review 'straw man' virtual systems and notes on forums:
    http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=109. - CANCELLED
  • All: Add to, or comment on, the bullet point list of architecture drivers. - CANCELLED.
  • All: Provide forum comment on the graphics used during the meeting; suggest "building blocks" that may be used in future:
    http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=29&p=257#p257 - CANCELLED.
  • ALL: review / comment in preparation for upcoming meetings. - CANCELLED
  • Tim: Draft matrix of SJTAG features against evolving solution options. - CANCELLED.
  • All: Post suggestions for key SJTAG gateway features on the forum (Ian will create topic) - CANCELLED
  • Carl: Contact Zoe about what material we could obtain for our use. - COMPLETE
  • Ian/Brad: Condense gateway comments and queries into a concise set of questions. - Ongoing
  • All: Revisit Gateway properties for next meeting. - COMPLETE
  • All: Email any ideas for Newsletter content to Ian. - COMPLETE
  • Heiko: Post Gateway environment discussion on the SJTAG forum. - COMPLETE
  • [Ian] I think it's maybe a year or so since we last reviewed the actions thoroughly.
  • {Discussion followed, during which it was agreed to remove the actions noted as CANCELLED.}
  • [Ian] Tim, your action is a little different, because it still has value, but is it something we can actually do in the near future?
  • [Tim] Probably too early. There too many options floating around just now.
  • [Ian] That's fine, we can remove the action but I don't want to forget it altogether.
  • [Heiko] Maybe we can put it down as a long term action?
  • [Tim] How about a forum item that we can mark to revisit?
  • [Adam] I think it may be better as an item in the wiki.
  • [Tim] Yes, it could say "Refer to selection guide matrix" and it's just a TBD.
  • [Ian] I like that - if the matrix is to be on an uncreated page, then it'll get a "red link" in the wiki and there is a simple query to find pages that still need to be created.
  • [Ian] Carl, the action on the iNEMI survey?
  • [Carl] Well the contact was made. I think it's more of an iNEMI issue now than anything to do with Zoe. I think they're kind of a loose group.
  • [Ian] I have the feeling that all the information we might have got out of them was presented at ITC.
  • [Carl] I suspect you are right.
  • [Ian] The action was to contact Zoe which you did, so I suppose that's complete. If they ever come back with anything later then we can consider it.

4. Discussion Topics

    1. Website status - Software updates
      • [Ian] Just before the New Year I updated the forum software from v3.0.6 to v3.0.8, so we now have all the latest updates included. It wasn't a completely smooth update as the update script decided to fail during copy the new files into place, which caused a bit of a panic, but it was simple enough to manually copy them in.
      • [Ian] I still don't know what went wrong there, but everything seems to be working OK, so I didn't waste time worrying about it.
      • [Ian] At the same time, I updated the wiki to v1.16.0, but just a day later I was checking something else and noticed that a security update to v1.16.1 had been released, so I re-updated to that.
      • [Ian] There are no really obvious things that will affect users with these updates. It's mostly bug fixes and security patches.
      • [Ian] However, and unrelated to the updates, since January 2nd, we've been getting hit with spam account registrations. This is affecting many forums, not just us: Another forum that I moderate had 180 spam posts from one user inside 24 hours and is getting about 20-30 registrations per day. I've removed around 100 accounts since this spate started, and I've now set the policy so that I have to approve all new account applications.
      • [Ian] I'll look at a better way of dealing with this in slower time.
    2. Reaffirmation of officers
      • [Ian] I sent out an additional email, to outline the process, just so we were all clear.
      • [Ian] Firstly we need to check that the current incumbents are happy to continue. Heiko, are you prepared to continue as Vice-chair?
      • [Heiko] I'm happy to continue, but I'm also happy to stand down if someone else would like the role.
      • [Ian] I have the same view. I'm content to continue, but will be equally content is someone else wants to take turn.
      • [Ian] Rohit pointed out that only needs to be an informal ballot, not a full reelection process, unless a need for change is found.
      • [Ian] OK, I'll make the motion that this group is satisfied that Heiko continues as Vice-chair.
      • {Seconded by Brian, no objections or abstentions}
      • [Brian] I'll move that Ian continues as Chair.
      • {Seconded by Eric, no objections or abstentions}
      • [Ian] OK, thank you all. We should amend our Operating Procedures to include this annual reaffirmation. I did start to look at this a little while back, but didn't really do anything.
      • [Eric] It just goes in 2.7, doesn't it?
      • [Ian] Let me see: Yes, it probably does. I can't see anywhere that it might end up conflicting with.
      • [Ian] Something along the lines of "Officers shall be reaffirmed by informal ballot on an annual basis."
      • [Eric] Yes, that would do.
      • [Ian] OK, I'll come up with some proposed text for review and incorporation next week. {ACTION}
    3. Target Setting
      • [Ian] I want to try to get some mile stones in mind for the year. Not fine- grained stuff, just a few key things.
      • [Ian] I suppose the big milestone that we're all looking toward is a PAR submission. Are there any others?
      • [Carl] I suppose any other milestone will have to be to further that one.
      • {Brad joined}
      • [Eric] Probably the next one is agreement on the content of the PAR.
      • [Ian] You mean the scope of the PAR?
      • [Eric] Yes.
      • [Ian] The Scope and Purpose are sections of the PAR, so we will need to address those. Is there anything else that we need to do for the PAR; does the White Paper need to be complete?
      • [Eric] Surely that can go along in parallel. So long as it's there to read when draft standard comes along.
      • [Brad] The Scope and Purpose statements we have are quite outdated now, from when they were originally written back around 2006.
      • [Brad] One question is that we've talked at length about reducing our scope for the PAR. I'd like to ask those with some experience of this, Adam and Heiko, if we come up with a scope and purpose is it for the dot 0 or the larger entity?
      • [Heiko] The dot 0 would be fine.
      • [Adam] Yes, in fact the scope and purpose from your PAR has to be incorporated verbatim into your standard.
      • [Ian] OK, but that then leads me to another question: Can we actually request a dot 0 or dot 1? I mean, in the case of 1149.1, 1149.4, etc., there was a planned overarching 1149 standard.
      • [Heiko] I think you have to ask for the dot 0 when you submit.
      • [Adam] You can make that request through Rohit. Either you do that or you make a comprehensive rerelease to add each part. It rather depends on how self-standing the parts are, and that may not be entirely clear right now.
      • [Ian] OK. Yes, I agree it's not yet clear. But at least both options exist.
      • [Ian] Getting to what's in our scope is something we'd started to look at.
      • [Brad] Also decomposition; how we decompose the problem space. Over time we've looked at this from so many different viewpoints.
      • [Brad] What is in our dot 0? We tried using the building blocks. We can see that there could be a division between chain management logic and selection logic, but that may not make sense.
      • [Brad] And using the device perspective versus board perspective versus a system perspective may not help as they can end up becoming one and the same.
      • [Ian] I'm feeling that we've maybe forgotten a lot that we've talked about during the 100 plus meetings. We probably need to reread some of the old minutes for the key takeaway points.
      • [Brad] We could partition up blocks of the minutes and hand those out to review in teams.
      • [Tim] Start a list on the forums. Maybe people could then post things that they remember straight off.
      • [Brad] I like the idea but I still think we need to go through the minutes.
      • [Ian] They're of variable size but maybe if each person took two or three we could get through them quite quickly.
      • [Tim] Maybe for the future we should have something at the bottom of the minutes to record the key points.
      • [Brad] Good idea! Why didn't you think of that three years ago?
      • [Brad] Might it be possible to leverage a search to pre-populate some items? It seemed to me that discussion about possible extensions were clustered.
      • [Ian] Possibly. The search does have an option to limit the scope to the minutes. Just trying that we get something like 8 hits for "extensions" and some more for "extension". At least a couple of those are relevant, around February and March of 2009.
      • [Brad] Anything that saves us time.
      • [Ian] Well that looks like somewhere to start. We can look at this more next week.

5. Schedule next meeting

Schedule for January 2011:

It was suggested that the meeting could be moved to be a half our later to avoid conflict with a prior meeting that Brad now needs to attend. Most attendees were agreeable to this although Adam noted that he may have to leave the call early if that were the case.

It was agreed that the next meeting would be held at the regular time of 10:30 AM EST, and we would discuss options further at that time.

6. Any other business


7. Review new action items

      • Ian: Prepare draft of updated text for Section 2.7 of the Operating Procedures.
      • Ian: Create a placeholder post on the forums for key points from meetings.

8. Adjourn

Brian moved to adjourn at 11:43 AM EST, seconded by Eric.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh