Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2009-01-05

Meeting called to order at 10:35 EST

1. Roll Call

Carl Walker
Eric Cormack
Tim Pender
Ian McIntosh
Peter Horwood
Carl Nielsen
Heiko Ehrenberg

Brad Van Treuren
Patrick Au

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

12/08/2008 minutes (draft circulated on 12/08)
Motion to approve by Eric, seconded by Heiko; no objections;

3. Review old action items

4. Discussion Topics

    1. IJTAG Liaison
      • [Ian] Brad advised me that the IJTAG group have voted not to pursue Alcatel Lucent's NSDL, so Brad won't have the support to continue attending the IJTAG meetings, meaning we have lost our liaison between SJTAG and IJTAG. Brad commented that both Heiko and Carl Neilsen occasionally attended the IJTAG meetings - Is that the case?
      • [Heiko] I did for a bit, mainly on the languages, but not so much now.
      • [Carl N] I was also attending with the languages Tiger Team, but not often.
      • [Ian] We may just have to live with occasional representation for now. I don't think I could spare the time to get involved.
      • [Heiko] I think their meeting schedule is quite aggressive too, maybe meeting twice a week.
      • [Carl N] I can talk with my management to see if they will consider letting me get more involved with IJTAG.
      • [Ian] That would be good. Thanks Carl.


    1. Revised meeting time
      • [Ian] We sent out an email about three weeks ago to solicit feedback to proposal for new meeting times; In summary four people prefer Mondays, one prefers Thursdays, and four have no preference. Two people may have problems with Thursdays, but no-one has said thay can't make Mondays. On that basis it seems like Monday meetings at 10:30 are the best option.
      • Motion to adopt Mondays at 10:30am Eastern Time as new standard meeting time by Heiko, seconded by Carl W.; no objections;


    1. Working Group Operating Procedures
      (see separate e-mail to regular meeting attendees, sent 12/06)
      • [Ian] Has everyone managed to have a look at the draft?
      • [Eric] Yes, I think this is based on the P1687 procedures?
      • [Ian] That's right. I used that a basis and made adjustments to reflect what we were already doing, or didn't seem to fit.
      • [Ian] Should we do this as a paragraph by paragraph review? It could take some time.
      • [Eric] That seems OK.
      • section 1:
      • no comments
      • section 2:
      • no comments
      • section 2.1:
      • [Heiko] add “section 3.1” or actual URL after "SJTAG website" in first sentence; add "SJTAG" to "website" in last sentence;
      • section 2.2:
      • no comments
      • section 2.3:
      • [Ian] membership to be determined at the end or the beginning of the meeting?
      • [Heiko] do we count partial attendance of a meeting? if so, how long after begin / before end of meeting can I join to be counted?
      • [Ian] should we adopt the TTSC rule of counting participating for at least 50% of the meeting time as "attended" ?
      • [Eric / Heiko] that seems reasonable
      • [Ian] I'll add this to the sentence "Membership will be determined at the conclusion of the meeting."
      • [Tim] is the membership roster accessible/visible on the SJTAG website?
      • [Ian] right now I only have it in a spreadsheet; I'll check for ways to make the roster visible on the website;
      • section 2.4:
      • [Ian] Proxy Attendance may not really be needed, but perhaps remains relevant enough to be allowed in our rules?
      • [Eric] I think it is still relevant; people may want to comment on topics but may not be able to join actual meetings;
      • [Tim] how do you ensure that someone read the minutes? what if one has no comments? how would that count towards "Proxy Attendance"?
      • [Ian] if someone submitted comments via email after a meeting (but didn't actually join the meeting), I counted that as "proxy attendance"
      • [Eric] we could harden the rules for "Proxy Attendance", for example to require comments to draft meeting minutes; if no comments are submitted, then it would be counted as an "Excused Absence" and would follow those rules;
      • [Ian] could you take a shot at revising this section to reflect this suggestion, Eric?
      • [Eric] I'll give it a try
      • section 2.5:
      • [Ian] to be scrutinized together with 2.4 after Eric's revisions
      • section 2.6:
      • [Heiko] Officers are elected in perpetuity - should we add reasons and methods to relieve elected officers?
      • [Ian] I think we should. I couldn't think of a way to word that, though.
      • [Heiko] I'll try to find some guidelines
      • section 2.7:
      • no comments
      • discussion suspended; continuing with section 3 in next meeting;
      • [Ian] I'll add a wiki page for the "Working Group Operating Procedures" for comments / revisions;


    1. Follow-up survey
      • + 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?
      • [Ian] I added an entry on in the SJTAG forum to start the discussion on the follow-up survey (you have to be logged in) in Working Group Tools section (
      • [Ian] We need to know what we're trying to learn from the survey, how we will benefit from the feedback we get. Which makes me think that there may be an opportunity to use the survey as a two-way communication. For example, I often get asked if there's a "best practice guide" on hardware design for SJTAG, but I think we've concluded that a bigger issue is the tooling and languages: If we can explain things like that then we might different responses to the questions we ask.
      • ALL to think about the questions above;


  1. White Paper section status
    • [Ian] no updates have been logged on the website

5. Schedule next meeting

January 2009 schedule

6. Any other business


7. Review new action items

8. Adjourn

moved to adjourn at 11:28am EST by Peter, seconded by Eric

Many thanks to Heiko for help with these notes.

Respectfully submitted,