Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2009-01-19

Meeting called to order at 10:35 EST

1. Roll Call

Carl Walker
Eric Cormack
Patrick Au [left at 11am EST]
Ian McIntosh
Andrew Levy
Adam Ley
Harrison Miles
Brad Van Treuren
Peter Horwood
Heiko Ehrenberg
Tim Pender [joined at 10:55am EST]

Carl Nielsen

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

1/12/2008 minutes (updated draft circulated on 01/13)

Motion to approve (with corrections) by Heiko, seconded by Patrick; no objections;

3. Review old action items

4. Discussion Topics

    1. IJTAG Liaison
      • [Ian] Carl advised that was unable to take on this role. Harrison, are you still prepared to support this for us?
      • [Harrison] Yes, I can do that.
      • [Brad] You might also want think about the fact that IJTAG has elected to split into a hardware team and a software/languages team. There could be two meetings a week if you're trying to attend everything.
      • [Harrison] Yes, they did split into two, but it was an agreement that there would be a "sync-up" meeting between the two sub-groups each month.
      • [Ian] Are you in the hardware or software group?
      • [Harrison] Software, being lead by Ted Eaton.
      • [Ian] Brad, last week Andrew raised the question of whether we had similar representation on other JTAG related Groups.
      • [Brad] I think we have quite good representation, with Heiko and Adam in 1581, and Adam, I think is still involved with dot 7?
      • [Adam] That is correct.
      • [Brad] I know there's also been some activity in dot 6 recently - I'm not so sure if you're still involved there Adam?
      • [Adam] Yes, I'm there with the dot 6.
      • [Brad] So yes we've got pretty good representation; maybe not as formal as with IJTAG.
      • [Ian] I think the main thing is that we're seen to be linked to the other groups.


    1. Working Group Operating Procedures
      (continued from 01/12)
      • [Ian] I'd hoped we could close this topic out this week, but I suspect that's not going to be possible. In any case, I don't really want to spend the next meeting on this subject; I think it's important we make some progress with our other business, and we're not under any pressure yet to complete this, so we can come back to it at a later date.
      • Section 2.4
      • [Ian] Eric proposed his changes for "2.4 Proxy Attendance" on the SJTAG Wiki
      • [Brad] Do we want to spell out what items of business a proxy participant cannot join in (e.g. seconding a motion) ?
      • [Ian] I have another related comment/question for the "quorum" discussion: Are we making things harder and more complicated for us than necessary? Is it maybe enough to establish a quorum for the meeting?
      • [Brad] Since Proxy participants were not on the call and couldn't hear what others said, they should not be able to vote on the approval of meeting minutes; the minutes may miss important discussion points - a proxy would not know that. Since the minutes are a record of the narrative, the approval is to ensure the accuracy of that narrative. And the proxy comments are pretty much added to the minutes as a verbatim copy of the e-mail.
      • [Ian] True, which means there's really no "right to reply" to proxy comments.
      • [Brad] Yes.
      • [Eric] Does that mean 2.3 needs to be changed too?
      • [Ian] Maybe it does.
      • [Brad] It may be sufficient to add "with the exception of meeting minutes"
      • [Ian] Yes, I think that would work.
      • Section 2.5
      • [Ian] Eric thinks this section doesn't need any changes.
      • Section 2.7
      • [Ian] Heiko made proposed changes on Wiki, adding the paragraph "The election of one or more new officer(s) can be initiated upon the approval of a properly seconded motion. Simple majority of the voting-eligible membership (section 2.3) is sufficient to both approve the motion and for election to office.";
      • [Ian] Any comments? {none voiced}
      • [Adam] I'd just add that we ought to use the word "voting" throughout this document, just to avoid any confusion with the sponsor ballots.
      • [Ian] That sounds like a very sensible suggestion.
      • Section 3.1
      • [Ian] Adam pointed out that the wording here opened some potential for questions on the nature of "private material". Brad also tried to describe two different classes of information that we might consider private, I made some proposed revisions for a) and b) on the discussion tab. Do we think that covers everything we need? Other wordings I came up with were just as flawed as the original.
      • [Patrick] By private, do you means things you can only get to with a password?
      • [Ian] Yes, that's right.
      • [Ian] Adam, you're usually good at spotting the flaws in these things - does this wording seem OK?
      • [Adam] It looks good to me.
      • [Ian] Any other comments/concerns on this section? {none voiced}
      • Section 3.4
      • [Ian] Brad asked if we should add the White Paper wiki and the forums as bulleted items. I'm not against this, but I consider the wiki and the forums as "tools" rather than "content", so I can see a case for the White Paper being listed, possibly as the top bullet.
      • [Brad] I think it is important that the White Paper is easy to find for people new to SJTAG, as the website has grown a lot of content and it's a bit overwhelming to know where go looking. We need to make sure interested parties can quickly find out what we are about, which the White Paper would be good for.
      • [Ian] I agree, the White Paper is a key document. I'll check the pointer on the home page; it probably points to the "old" draft, but should maybe now point to the wiki, and the wiki can have a link back to the old document.
      • [Brad] Also, I wanted to promote more use of the forums: It doesn't seem very clear that we have a way to facilitate discussions / on-line dialog or that there's some useful discussion in there. Tim's question last fall about memory testing would have been good for the forums.
      • [Ian] OK, I'll add the Wiki and the Forum as separate bullets.
      • Section 5
      • [Ian] Brad had some proxy comments on this section, too, regarding the quorum for voting.
      • [Ian] Adam, what are your thoughts on this section so far?
      • [Adam] My thoughts are that quorum would be based as 50% + 1 for formal voting; For informal voting, the threshold could be lower if we want and should be spelled out.
      • [Ian] I had the thought that maybe we need to split this section clearly into "Informal" and "Formal" with fuller description of process for each case.
      • [Adam] That's pretty much how I was thinking of it, and it is almost laid out that way now. This would probably move quorum details under section 4;
      • [Ian] I would agree with that.
      • [Brad] 50% of what?
      • [Adam] 50% of the rostered, voting-eligible membership
      • [Ian] The lowest number of rostered members we've had on a call was four, and a few times with five. How much of a logistics problem might that be? On the other hand, we currently have 8 rostered members right now and that could easily rise to 10 or 12.
      • [Brad] maybe "majority" will be better wording than 50% + 1; with an odd number 50% + 1 could end up as 50% + 2.
      • [Adam] For informal votes we can use a lower figure; anything we want really, but for the formal votes I'd definitely insist that we have at least 50%.
      • [Eric] Doesn't the chair have the casting vote if it's a split decision?
      • [Ian] Yes, the chair only has a vote in the case of a split decision.
      • [Eric] Well, isn't that your "+ 1"?
      • [Brad] Maybe we should use the 50% + 1 for now and see how it works. If it proves to be a problem we can re-evaluate.
      • {agreed}
      • [Ian] Adam, will you continue to work on the re-draft.
      • [Adam] I will. Do you want the wording to accommodate splitting the informal and formal votes?
      • [Ian] If you can do that, yes, please.


    1. December/January Newsletter
      • [Ian] any comments? Peter had questioned whether "DfT" should be "DFT". I don't have a strong opinion on this.
      • [Peter] Neither have I, whatever is accepted.
      • [Adam] I think ITC has some guidance on this, shall I look it up?
      • [Ian] Well ITC is an IEEE sponsored event, so that guidance will be good enough for me. Pass it on later, we can continue for now.
      • [Ian] If there are no other comments, do we have a motion to approve this for issue?
      • Motion to approve publication of the newsletter by Peter, Eric seconds, no objections.


    1. Follow-up survey
      • [Ian] Time is getting on so I don't want to discuss this today, but please take a look at the forum post in Working Group Tools » Follow-up User Survey (2009). Consider how we might partition the questionnaire/respondents, and the value to us of the survey. {Action}
      • [Brad] I remember that a survey on JTAG adoption was being prepared by iNEMI.
      • [Andrew] That survey is now issued. You can follow the "JTAG at iNEMI" link on the SJTAG home page, and the link to their survey is there at the top of the page. I don't think there's any mention of System JTAG there though.
      • [Brad] OK, but it might still give us all some ideas.


  1. White Paper section status
    • defer discussion to next meeting

5. Schedule next meeting

Monday Jan 26, 2009, 10:30am EST

February schedule
Monday Feb 02, 2009, 10:30am EST
Monday Feb 09, 2009, 10:30am EST
Monday Feb 16, 2009, 10:30am EST
Monday Feb 23, 2009, 10:30am EST

6. Any other business


7. Review new action items

8. Adjourn

Moved to adjourn at 11:34am EST by Eric, seconded by Peter

Many thanks to Heiko for his help with these notes.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh