The System JTAG Working Group

Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2009-01-12

Meeting called to order at 10:35 EST

1. Roll Call

Carl Walker
Eric Cormack
Tim Pender
Ian McIntosh
Andrew Levy
Adam Ley
Harrison Miles
Heiko Ehrenberg

Excused:
Brad Van Treuren (proxy comment supplied)
Peter Horwood
Carl Nielsen (proxy comment supplied)
Patrick Au

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

1/05/2008 minutes
- corrections:

start time corrected to 10:35am
In 4a, "ust" -> "just"
In 4c, "adjustements" -> "adjustments"
In 4e, "webiste" -> "website"

Motion to approve (with corrections) by Heiko, seconded by Eric; 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)
[All] does the new proposed meeting time for Mondays: 4pm GMT (http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/) work for you? do we still want to hold Wednesday meetings? - CLOSED
[Ian] Circulate the three options for revised meeting times to allow a decision to be made next week. - CLOSED
[All] state your preference for new meeting schedule - CLOSED
[All] review/comment on "Operating Procedures of the SJTAG Working Group"
[Carl N.] consider being our liason to IJTAG
[Eric] rework sections 2.4 and 2.5 of Working Group Procedures - in progress
[Heiko] try to find guidelines for replacement of officers for Working Group Procedures - in progress

4. Discussion Topics

IJTAG Liaison

[Ian] Carl N. is not on the call, so we'll have to defer until Carl N. is back on the call. Or are either of the Corelis people here regular IJTAG participants?
[Harrison] I am a regular attender in IJTAG meetings; if it makes sense I'd be happy to act as liason between SJTAG and IJTAG.
[Ian] Thanks. We should get Carl's feedback too - maybe the role could be shared.
[Harrison] That would maybe help.
[Carl N - Proxy] Regarding the IJTAG liaison, I will not be able to commit to this role at this time.
[Andrew] Do you plan to do the same with the other JTAG standards - dot 7, dot 1, dot 4, dot 6 and so on?
[Ian] Good question - I suppose we should have some link. Heiko is obviously there in 1581, and other places. Adam too, but I don't know if we're "officially" represented. Maybe Brad had a view on this - I need to check.

Working Group Operating Procedures (continued from 1/5/2009)

[Ian] Eric, you had some offline changes made to 2.4 and 2.5 ?
[Eric] yes, I'm still working on it and will put the proposal on the Wiki pages {ACTION}
[Tim] to be clear, in case of Proxy participation, if I don't have comments I need to send back at least an email stating that I read the minutes?
[Ian] Yes, I'd say that is correct - You have to request the proxy, usually because there's something on the agenda you think you need to comment on, then you must supply feedback fo it to be counted as attendance.
[Eric] Yes, that's right.
[Ian] regarding 2.7 Election of Officers there was a discussion on the Wiki, with comments by Adam and Heiko - this was regarding the conditions for removing officers.
[Heiko] I agree with Adam's comments and will propose some wording for this section {ACTION}
[Adam] The TTSC policy requires a 2/3 majority of the eligible membership to approve such an action, that may be too onerous. The TTSC policy also requires that reasons are given in the wording of the motion, but I guess that would happen anyway in most cases.
[Ian] Regarding the question of required majority to approve the motion to re-select officers, should we use the 2/3 requirement from the TTSC procedures or simple majority (like the "50% + 1" Adam proposed)?
[Heiko] I think simple majority would be sufficient
[Eric] I agree
[Ian] any other thoughts?
{none voiced}
[Ian] then lets move on to section 3 ...
[Ian] I think in b) is should really say "of the Working Group and the website".
[Adam] in 3.1, I'm not sure that "commercially sensitive" is really necessary in a). It might open up some issues we'd rather avoid.
[Ian] The logical conclusion then might be that clause b) would no longer be required either?
[Adam] Yes, true, but b) is a specific example; I think you can leave it. Just strike out "to be commercially sensitive and" from a)
[Brad - Proxy] Section 3.1.a should include wording regarding showing intent that there are 2 classifications of information being protected: 1) that which is not ready for public access, 2) that which should remain private to the group during the discussion process (I think what Ian was referring to as commercially sensitive included). Some of the latter includes b) as stated by Ian and Adam. Just striking "to be commercially sensitive and" does not seem to be sufficient. There is information that is not yet ready for public circulation and yet eventually get there that will fall into this category. There may be additional information that is straw man information that will die before reaching public access. I am not sure if we want to clog up the public space with all archived data.
Do people feel we need to present all information, eventually, in order to capture the thought process or should we filter what goes onto the public web space?
[Ian] Any comments on section 3.2.1? {none voiced; wording accepted}
[Ian] Any comments on section 3.2.2? {none voiced; wording accepted}
[Ian] Section 3.3: "50% of participants" should be "50% of rostered participants", shouldn't it? {agreement}
[Ian] Any other comments {none voiced}
[Ian] Section 3.4: Do we need to be more specific? should we mention the White Paper specifically?
{the group agreed that the wording is ok and no specific documents need to be listed}
[Brad - Proxy] Should we explicitly state the white paper wiki as a separate bullet item? Should we explicitly state the discussion forum as a separate bullet item?
[Ian] any comments on section 4.1?
[Ian] For information, Carl, how many slots do we have on this call bridge? Depending on the documentation I read, mine has either 50 slots or is unlimited.
[Carl W.] The bridge doesn't have a limit, it expands as needed.
[Ian] Any comments on section 4.2? I had some difficulty with this - I wasn't sure if I should mention specific conferences like ITC or leave it open ended.
[Heiko] We might get to the point where we have more frequent face-to-face meetings - one month's notice might then be too long to manage.
[Adam] But travel needs time to arrange.
[Ian] If we can't really identify a problem with the wording as it stands, then maybe we should leave it for now. We can allow ourselves to correct it later if the circumstances arise.
{agreed}
[Ian] any comments on section 4.3? {none voiced}
[Ian] any comments on section 4.4? {none voiced}
[Ian] any comments on section 4.5? {none voiced}
[Ian] section 5.1: change "done" to "carried out" or "conducted"? Any other comments? {none voiced}
[Ian] 5.3 and 5.2 seem swapped; we should probably talk about ballot process first and then about quorum
[Ian] any comments on section 5.3? {none voiced}
[Ian] I'm not sure about 5.2, I started out by presuming that a quorum wasn't as issue if we take ballots by e-mail since everyone should be able to vote, but it falls apart if people don't e-mail in votes, so there's an arbitrary minimum of 5 votes required. Maybe that should be 50% of the rostered members?
[Heiko] I was going ask why it was "5".
[Adam] For informal votes, which will be used exclusively during live meetings, the quorum needs to be based on the rostered participants.
[Ian] Yes, and I guess 5.1 doesn't really address who can vote.
[Adam] For the formal case, it needs to be based on the entire rostered membership.
[Ian] Adam, can you re-word this section, or are you too busy right now?
[Adam] I guess I can take a look at it later this week {ACTION}
[Brad - Proxy] Section 5.2: Should we have a minimum of 50% of the physically present members in the meeting that are active members and not just a 50% rule or the hard number of 5? This covers the case if no proxies are received and the number of attending members is less than 50% of the rostered size. This minimum would be applied after, say a 75% of the week has elapsed with no proxy responses.
[Ian] any comments on section 6? {none voiced}

Follow-up survey - deferred to next call

How do we group the survey users (survey partitioning)?
What information do we want from each group?
What generic data do we want from all respondents?

White Paper section status - deferred to next call

5. Schedule next meeting

January 2009 schedule

Monday, Jan 19, 2009, 10:30am EST
Monday, Jan 26, 2009, 10:30am EST

[Ian] Carl has already sent out electronic invitations through to the end of June, but these are the meetings formally agreed so far.

6. Any other business

none

7. Review new action items

Eric: put his proposal for 2.4 and 2.5 on the Wiki
Heiko: propose some revised wording for section 2.7
Ian: revise wording in section 3.1 based on discussion with Adam
Adam: revise wording of section 5

8. Adjourn

Moved to adjourn at 11:31am EST by Eric, seconded by Heiko

Many thanks to Heiko for contributing his notes.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh