The System JTAG Working Group

Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2009-07-13

Meeting called to order at 10:38 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Peter Horwood
Brian Erickson
Carl Walker
Adam Ley
Patrick Au
Brad Van Treuren
Eric Cormack (joined 10:47)

Excused:
Heiko Ehrenberg

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

6/29/2009 minutes:

• Draft circulated on 29th June:
• One correction: The new action should refer to "Programming/Updates" and not "BIST and Fault Injection".

Brad moved to approve with the above amendment, seconded by Carl. 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)
• 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
• 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
• Ian/Brad: Construct new question(s) for row 21 based on Brad's previous graphic. - Ongoing.
• Ian/Brad: Construct new question(s) on gateway devices (linkers, bridges, instrumentation gateways). - COMPLETE.
• All: Review draft 2009 survey form and comment through forums:
  http://www.sjtag.org/survey/forms/form1.html
  http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=83. - CANCELLED.
• Heiko/Ian: Make amendments to Volume 2 to reflect discussion on BIST and Fault Injection. - COMPLETE
• Heiko/Ian: Make amendments to Volume 2 to reflect discussion on Programming/ Updates. - COMPLETE

• [Ian] I managed to make some edits on the wiki, to take some of the things that Heiko hadn't yet converted from notes, and format them up. I also added some value proposition material where we had blanks.
• [Brad] We also managed to work up some more questions on gateways.

4. Discussion Topics

1. Additional Meeting Proposal
   • [Ian] I emailed out an advance notice on this. Since most of us are struggling to find time to do anything outside of these meetings, Brad raised the suggestion of trying to hold a second meeting each week, tackling a different topic from the first meeting.
   • [Brad] What I had in mind was to "divide and conquer". Some of the subjects we've been getting into recently maybe only fall into the area of interest of a few members. I thought if we had a second topic then people may opt to enter that discussion rather than just listening in on a subject they don't feel they can contribute to.
   • [Patrick] How long would this other meeting be?
   • [Brad] I saw it as much the same as this one.
   • [Ian] Part of the point was that you wouldn't need to attend both meetings each week. Either would count for the week. That's why I said in my email that we may need to vary our procedures on attendance.
   • [Brad] And people can always use the proxy method if they see something they want to comment on.
   • [Patrick] Can you manage two meetings each week?
   • [Ian] I'm pretty sure I can make the time for a second meeting. I do have some concerns over the logistics though: I think I'd really struggle to deal with getting two sets of minutes sent out for review, so I'd need a second "recorder" for one of the meetings. I'd also worry that if most people can only make one meeting then we'd end up spreading ourselves too thin.
   • [Adam] Well, you could consider it as one meeting in two parts; you go into recess at the end of the first session and resume in the second session.
   • [Ian] That seems reasonable. But you still have two hours worth of notes to type up.
   • [Brad] My motivation here was that it seemed like topics were getting fewer people responding. Looking at who was participating, it seemed that people were falling into groups depending on their areas of interest.
   • [Ian] Well, the first question has got to be "How many of us think they might be able to attend a second meeting?"
   • {Brad, Eric, Ian, Patrick, Carl and Adam all indicated they felt this was possible}
   • [Ian] That's more than I thought it would be. The next question would be to find a time, and I guess the most obvious answer would be to go back to the second choice we had when we decided on the time for this meeting. That would then be Thursday at 10:30 EDT.
   • [Brad] I know Heiko would have a conflict for the 16th as there's a P1581 meeting that day, although they're usually on Fridays.
   • [Brian] I guess it'd be possible to join the other meeting if you find you can make more time?
   • [Ian] Yes, of course.
   • [Brian] Another possibility is to run the current meeting for an extra hour. That would eliminate all the roll call, etc., for the second meeting and may save some time.
   • [Carl] I could have a problem with that. I have meetings that abut either side of this hour.
   • [Adam] I have the same situation with adjacent meetings.
   • [Ian] I could probably manage the second hour, but it is starting to get a bit late for dealing with the minutes, etc. It'd pretty much kill the rest of my evening.
   • [Brad] It's just a suggestion and maybe we don't need to vote on it today.
   • [Ian] Yes, I was about to suggest that we come back to this next week after we've had a chance to think on it some more.


2. 2009 Survey:
   • [Ian] The form now has the database input active, but so far as I can tell, only Heiko has taken the time to try testing the form out and he's supplied some comments back to me.
   • [Ian] We did some rearanging, but it's only when you come to try to fill out the survey "for real" that you start to realise where the questions maybe don't make sense. We need to be sure that each question has a intent and that we know what we hope to learn from the responses. In particular, question 5.2 seems to be very similar to 5.3: Brad you noted that 5.2 was abstract while 5.3 dealt with specific applications.
   • [Brad] Yes, it something that I felt we need to open up to greater discussion within the group.
   • [Patrick] Can I ask, who are we targeting? Is it the designers and test engineers?
   • [Ian] We're really hoping to get the whole spectrum, including the engineering managers.
   • [Patrick] Some of the questions are very technical, and I wouldn't think that the managers would be able to answer those.
   • [Ian] At the moment, only the questions in sections 1 and 2 are mandatory for everyone, and that is open still open to discussion. At the top of the form there is an instruction to respond to the questions you think you can answer. If you don't know how to answer you can just skip the question.
   • [Ian] The idea behind the first couple of sections was to get a kind of "calibration" on the user so we can adjust our interpretation of subsequent answers. That may or may not work.
   • [Brad] It's possible that I can come up with a way to merge 5.2 and 5.3. I can work on that this week. {ACTION}
   • [Ian] That's good. When I went through reorganising the questions, I found 5.7 was also had similar wording to 5.2 and 5.3, but it was clear that it's focus was on diagnostics, so it was easily reworded. I didn't know what to do about 5.2 and 5.3 though.
   • [Brad] I found that the reorganization helped me.
   • [Ian] Who has actually had a look at the form recently?
   • [Eric] I have yet to look, and I'll be out of the country next week.
   • [Ian] I know it's a big form and will take time to go through so what I'd suggest is just doing a block or two at a time. You do need to fill out the first two sections, but you can fairly quickly fill those fields with any random answers. Then let me have any feedback. It's probably better to make any comments through the forum topic, that way everyone can see what's already been raised.
   • [Brad] I'll post my updated question on the forums then.
   • [Patrick] I can't see how I'm supposed to reply to some questions. In 1.4, do I delete the bullets that don't apply?
   • [Ian] I'm not sure I'm following what you mean.
   • [Brad] I get a drop-down list box to the right, are you not getting that?
   • [Patrick] No.
   • [Ian] What browser are you using?
   • [Patrick] I'm going through Lotus Notes.
   • [Eric] From the email? Try copying the link into Internet Explorer or Firefox.
   • [Patrick] No, I still can't see how to reply.
   • [Ian] I'll try to share my web browser so you can see how it should look.
   • {Pause while sharing setup}
   • [Patrick] Ah, OK, I see how to answer from that. I'm not getting that.
   • [Ian] But you are getting some kind of text representation?
   • [Patrick] Yes. Don't worry, I'll look into it later.
   • [Ian] There's javascript in the form for the popup help, but the main body is just a regular HTML Form; nothing clever that might get blocked by a firewall.


3. White Paper Review:
   • [Ian] Our hour is up so well look at Root Cause Analysis next time.

5. Schedule next meeting

Schedule for July 2009:
Monday July 20, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT
Monday July 27, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT

Both Peter and Eric will be unable to attend the next two meetings.

6. Any other business

None

7. Review new action items

• Brad: Propose merge of survey questions 5.2 and 5.3; post on forums.
• All: Trial survey form and provide comments through forums (replaces previous action to review draft survey form).

8. Adjourn

Peter moved to adjourn at 11:34 AM EDT, seconded by Brad.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh