Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2011-01-17

Meeting called to order: 10:35 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Eric Cormack
Heiko Ehrenberg
Ian McIntosh
Patrick Au
Adam Ley
Peter Horwood

Apologies:
Carl Walker
Tim Pender
Brian Erickson
Brad Van Treuren

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

01/10/2011 minutes:

  • Updated draft circulated on 01/11/2011.
  • Three corrections noted:
    • Brad joined the meeting at 11:00 AM.
    • In 4c: "[Brad] Whit is in our dot 0?" should be "[Brad] What is in our dot 0?"
    • In 4c: "[Ian] ... We can at this more next week." should be "[Ian] ... We can look at this more next week."
  • Eric moved to approve, seconded by Patrick, 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: 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)
  • Ian/Brad: Condense gateway comments and queries into a concise set of questions. - Ongoing
  • Ian: Prepare draft of updated text for Section 2.7 of the Operating Procedures. - COMPLETE
  • Ian: Create a placeholder post on the forums for key points from meetings. - COMPLETE
  • [Ian] I forgot to email out a link to the forum post I created. A lot of things slipped past me last week. However, although there was no action for it, I also edited Volume 3 on the wiki to insert a link to the TBD matrix that Tim had proposed, so it can be found by looking for "wanted pages".
    (http://wiki.sjtag.org/index.php?title=Special:WantedPages)

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Amendment to Operating Procedures
    - Review draft text, sent by email
    • {Ian shared on the screen the text he sent out}
    • [Ian] I split the original text into numbered subsections, as it made it easier to refer to specific paragraphs.
    • [Ian] Are there any comments on this proposal?
    • [Heiko] We may need a note in there that members should contact Rohit if they feel that the officers need to be changed but don't feel comfortable with sharing their concerns directly with the group.
    • [Ian] Rohit did make the point that he could be approached directly if the members of a group somehow felt unable to express their opinions on their leadership. I didn't think of adding such a note; I don't have an objection to it, I just didn't think about it. I'm not sure on how to word that, though. It maybe needs more thought than we can manage during the meeting.
    • [Heiko] I could try to come up with something and send you a proposal.
    • [Ian] Does the rest look like it serves its purpose, though?
    • [Heiko] Yes, I would say so.
    • [Ian] Maybe we can add a section 2.7.4. We should look at that offline, Heiko, and come up with a proposed addition for next week's meeting. {ACTION}
    • [Ian] On the basis that we're proposing that addition, there's no point in voting on the existing text yet.
  2. Identification of key "Take Away Points"
    - Review outcome of searches
    - Partition minutes for review
    - Mechanisms for reporting
    • {Website search on "extension" shared}
    • {Started to review meeting minutes from 02/02/2009}
    • [Ian] The reference to an extension was in the discussion on the PAR form.
    • [Ian] It seems we came away from last weeks meeting with two rather different ways to progress. One was to use the search to look for specific key words, the other was to simply read over the text and look for any notable points.
    • [Ian] Search only helps if we know what we are looking for: If we want to identify the key takeaways/ideas in each of the minutes, search doesn't help much, so it looks like we're back to the grind of working through the minutes.
    • [Heiko] Perhaps we need to identify blocks of meeting minutes, assign them to members, and skip a few meetings, having everyone parse "their" block of minutes to identify the key takeaways.
    • [Ian] Brad had hoped we could speed things up by looking for keywords, which would maybe work if we had a list of key things that people had already recalled. But no-one has done a "brain dump".
    • [Ian] If we do this, we should try it out with a limited set of minutes, maybe starting with the earliest blocks of minutes.
    • [Ian] Our recorded minutes for weekly minutes start Oct 5, 2007. Maybe the simplest way to ensure people looking through the minutes don't trip over each other and duplicate effort, is to use the way the minutes are broken down into quarter years on the index page; each person takes one quarter.
    • [Ian] I think if we try that and see how well it works. I wouldn't expect that everyone will find time to go through a whole quarter in a week, but even if we can each manage one or two meeting then we'll get an idea of whether this is useful or not.
    • [Heiko] I'll go ahead and volunteer to parse the minutes for Q4/2007
    • [Ian] I'll take Q1/2008
    • [Patrick] I'd work on Q2/2008; what exactly should we do?
    • [Ian] Browse through the minutes, identify any key discussion points and post those in the forum discussion I created for this purpose. Try to get as much of your assigned quarter done as possible prior to next week's meeting - this will help us gauge the progress we can make.
    • [Ian] Some of the meetings may not have specific key takeaway points, and I wouldn't expect there to be more than one or two at most.
    • [Patrick] Can you send out a link to the forum post?
    • [Ian] Yes. I'll send out an email with the forum link and include some instructions as well as the list of volunteers. {Action}
    • [Eric] I'll do Q3/2008
    • [Adam] I can take Q4/2008
    • [Peter] I'll take a look at Q1/2009
  3. Trial amendment to meeting start time.
    • [Ian] Last week we were considering moving the meeting to begin 30 minutes later, to try to accomodate Brad's scheduling conflict.
    • [Eric] I think it was only Adam that had a small problem with that.
    • [Adam] Yes, I have a nonnegotiable appointment at 11:00 Central which is 12:00 Eastern and means I'd need to leave at around 11:50.
    • [Ian] Still, that's 45-50 minutes where you could be available, which doesn't seem too bad.
    • [Adam] I think it's a fair compromise: Brad's contributions are invaluable to these meetings.
    • [Ian] We have two meetings left in January, 24th and 31st, so we can try a meeting time 30 minutes later for the next two meetings and see how that works out. That will be 11:00 AM EST or 4:00 PM GMT.
       
    • {Post Meeting Note: Brad has indicated that the meeting that was creating the conflict may be moved to another day, obviating the need for any change of our meeting time. }

5. Schedule next meeting

Schedule for January 2011:
24th
31st

Adam will miss 24th.

Patrick may miss 24th unless the later meeting time is used.

6. Any other business

  • [Ian] I just thought I'd point out that photos from ITC 2010 have now been put on the ITC website, and we manage to appear in one of the photos. That gives us a bit more visibility than I'd expected.
    http://www.itctestweek.org/about/photos

7. Review new action items

  • Heiko: Prepare draft of Section 2.7.4 of the Operating Procedures.
  • Ian: Send email listing the link to forum post for recording key points from meeting, instruction on conducting the review, and a reminder of which block each person was reviewing.

8. Adjourn

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

Thanks to Heiko for providing additional notes for this meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh