Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2011-01-24

Meeting called to order: 11:08 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Eric Cormack
Heiko Ehrenberg
Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker
Brian Erickson
Brad Van Treuren (joined 11:20)
Tim Pender (joined 11:26)

Patrick Au
Adam Ley
Peter Horwood

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

01/17/2011 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 01/17/2011.
  • No corrections noted.
  • Insufficient attendance to vote on approval (deferred to next meeting).
  • [Eric] Last week, we didn't record what the key points of the meeting were.
  • [Ian] Yes, it's not something that I added to the agenda, so we didn't discuss that, but it's worth doing. Let's make sure we do that at the end of our discussion today and I'll put on future agendas.

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
  • Ian/Brad: Condense gateway comments and queries into a concise set of questions. - Ongoing
  • Heiko: Prepare draft of Section 2.7.4 of the Operating Procedures. - COMPLETE
  • 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. - COMPLETE

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Amendment to Operating Procedures - Review draft text
    • {Ian shared Heiko's proposed additional text for a sub clause 2.7.4, addressing concerns about performance of officers: http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=143}
    • [Eric] looks good to me
    • [Ian] I'm fairly happy with it
    • [Ian] I need to double check on voting privileges of our working group roster: 9 are allowed to vote, 5 of which we have on the call today, or 4, not including myself. If we had one more we'd be able to meet the 50% rule.
    • [Eric] Maybe we should wait until next week to vote on this.
    • [Ian] Yes, we should wait.
    • [Ian] Considering the addition proposed by Heiko, are there any changes we need to make to 2.7.1 through 2.7.3?
    • [Eric] No, I don't think so.
    • [Ian] OK, so we'll just wait to vote on this until next week.
    • {Brad joined; 11:20 AM EST}
    • [Ian] Well, with Brad joining we actually could vote on the operating procedures.
    • [Brad] Glad I joined in time!
    • {Ian reviewed the proposed section 2.7 of our operating procedures, since Brad was not on last week's meeting either}
    • [Ian] Did you have a chance to review this, Brad?
    • [Brad] I'm just reading it now; it seems to be in line with the email I saw from Rohit. I think the wording looks fine.
    • [Ian] I'll look for a motion to adopt this then.
    • [Eric] I motion that we incorporate clauses 2.7.1 through 2.7.4 into our operating procedures.
    • [Brad] I second.
    • [Ian] Any objections?
    • [Ian] I note no objections, so we accept these subclauses as additions to our operating procedures and I'll incorporate them into our online documents accordingly;
  2. Identification of key "Take Away Points" - Progress and effectiveness of review of past minutes
    • [Brian] As I missed last week, what block of minutes should I look at?
    • [Ian] We simply allocated "quarters" as listed on the minutes index on the website, starting with the oldest ones. So the next block would be Q2 2009.
    • [Brian] OK, I'll take Q2 2009.
    • [Brad] So, I'd take Q3 2009 then?
    • [Ian] OK, great, if you guys can manage that.
    • [Ian] So, Eric and Heiko, how did you feel this exercise went? I'd like to know if you felt this was a worthwhile exercise.
    • [Eric] I think it went well. There was a lot of chat in my set of notes, around September 2008, so I had to do a lot of reading, but I think it went well and was worth the exercise.
    • [Heiko] I kind of agree. I found it a bit difficult sometimes to trim it down to a couple of key points, I tended to want to put down too much information in the summary again.
    • [Ian] Yes, I had the same issues.
    • {Tim Pender joined; 11:26 AM EST}
    • [Ian] Some of the minutes had more obvious key takeaway points, while others may just reveal some topics we have discussed but may have forgotten about by now and a gentle reminder would be all that comes out of such a meeting.
    • [Ian] Also, some things we felt we'd agreed on previously may not hold true today.
    • [Ian] What is our opinion here? Is it better to continue to review these offline or should we review the summaries we have now?
    • [Brad] I think we should continue with what you're doing. It would be beneficial to figure out a common format (detail of contents) for these summaries.
    • [Brad] I'm more interested in the amount of detail we want to include and how we want to present it in these summaries.
    • [Ian] I didn't want to specify a format of these summaries that people might have difficulty recreating on the forum, so I left it open ended.
    • [Brad] What I'm hearing is that two people had trouble wheening down the notes. Ian, you had bullets, maybe not even sentences, just phrases. Heiko's is more like a mini viewgraph.
    • [Ian] Yes, and I think Eric just tried to copy my format.
    • [Eric] Yes, but as I got further on, I found I had more things I wanted to note.
    • [Brad] I think we should limit each meeting minute summary an amount that would fit on a single slide in a slide deck.
    • [Ian] I agree. It's possible I tried to condense things too far. I've still to complete my block anyway, so I'll revisit what I've done.
    • [Ian] There's the odd one that maybe won't have any key points. And the volume of minutes varies. Looking at the text files, they're typically 12kB to 14kB, but some, such as when Brad used the call recordings to prepare the drafts, might be over 40kB.
    • [Brad] Feedback I've received from people outside the group is that they really appreciate the dynamic that comes across.
    • [Ian] Well, it helps the readability. I hate minutes the notes are cryptic.
    • [Brad] And it conveys the intent; the hidden meanings.
    • [Tim] Remind me what the objective was here.
    • [Ian] It was to distill out any key points, in particular things that might influence what goes into out Dot 0 or into an extension.
    • [Eric] It was discussion on what goes into our PAR, which we want to have in this year.
    • [Ian] Yes, defining our Scope and Purpose.
    • [Tim] I'm concerned about the danger that we might be just summarizing the past minutes, rather than identifying the key points.
    • [Brad] I think Ian defined what he was looking for in major takeaway points: Things that are useful to define our PAR and the delineation of supplements.
    • [Ian] I'm looking at this as a "first pass". After we have all these points collated, we'll probably need to go through it again to "sort" them into what affects dot 0, etc., but I do take Tim's point.
    • [Brad] Yes, it takes discipline to stay focused on identifying the key points.
    • [Ian] Since Tim has joined us, perhaps Tim would be willing to volunteer for the minutes of Q4/2009?
    • [Tim] Sure, I'll take on Q4/2009.
    • [Ian] It's good that people have felt this was useful. Perhaps, just reading over these key points at leisure will give everyone a quick refresher on some of the discussions we've had.
    • [Brad] What is clear is that we've dealt with very broad discussion and have some good content. We're now trying to glean that information - data mining in software terms.
    • [Ian] I should maybe look to see if there's some tooling we can use to help organize the distilled data.
    • [Eric] Something discussed in early minutes may come again later on, so it's likely there'll be some duplicates.
    • [Heiko] Could use Mind Mapping software to see if we can build a picture of what we're talking about.
    • [Brad] I wonder if we should start allocating resources as subject area experts who then mine for information specific to that subject.
    • [Ian] Maybe we learn what those subject areas are after we've collated the current information?
    • [Brad] For some aspects, but the White Paper is something that we've left open ended. A couple of people have been asking me "what is SJTAG?"
    • [Brad] I see two main categories here:
      • Fleshing out the White Paper
      • Partitioning the revision levels for our standard.
    • [Brad] Ian, I suspect you and I will need a dialogue on where we can define the revision points that we then bring back to the group. That seems to have worked well in the past.

5. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • [Eric] We seem to be losing ground against what people expect to be in our White Paper.
  • [Eric] Definition of the PAR for dot 0 needs to come out of this.
  • [Brad] Use partitioning to observe and interpret the data we are compiling.

6. Schedule next meeting

Schedule for January 2011:
31st (11:00 AM EST)

Schedule for February 2011:
  • [Eric] Last week there was some suggestion that Brad's other meeting may move, meaning we wouldn't need the later time?
  • [Brad] I've heard nothing on that moving so far. On the other hand, it's been noted that I'm spending 50% of my time in meetings, so I may get pulled from some anyway.
  • [Ian] OK, we'll continue with this time for next week and then see what happens.

7. Any other business


8. Review new action items


9. Adjourn

Eric moved to adjourn at 12:04 PM EST, seconded by Carl.

Thanks to Heiko for providing additional notes for this meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh