Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2010-01-11

Meeting called to order at 10:39 AM EST

Due to an error in the Calling Notice, a second call formed using the previous meeting number and was called to order at 10:40. Those parties rejoined the main call at the times shown in the Roll Call. {ACTION}

1. Roll Call

Carl Walker
Ian McIntosh
Michele Portolan
Tim Pender
Brian Erickson (joined 10:54)
Eric Cormack (joined 10:55)
Brad Van Treuren (joined 10:56)
Heiko Ehrenberg (joined 10:58)
Patrick Au (joined 10:59)

Adam Ley
Peter Horwood

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

12/14/2009 minutes:

3. Review old action items

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Outline Schedule for Q1
    • [Ian] I had planned to discuss the activities we might have for the next couple of months, but I frankly haven't given it as much thought as I'd like so, unless anyone has any suggestions, then I propose to defer this subject to another meeting.
    • [Heiko] We were talking about whether we should be submitting a PAR during Q1.
    • [Ian] I'm wary on that. It's obviously an objective we should have, but in some ways I feel we're less ready for it now than I felt a year ago. I just want us to be sure that we have the right scope and purpose, as changing a PAR isn't easy.
    • [Heiko] No, you basically have to submit a new PAR.
    • [Ian] I think as PAR is something we do need to have in our sights, but I think Q1 is maybe being too optimistic.
  2. 2009 Survey - Preliminary review of submissions
    • [Ian] I sent out a couple of items for us to look at: An extract of the general comments from the end of the survey, and the first few charts I was able to prepare.
    • {'Comments' slides shared}
    • [Ian] The first comment relates to Q2.5, and shows this respondent felt that a more analogue kind of response was more apt - a sort of three-way slider. It's difficult to put this comment into any context because an error in the form meant that all the submitted data was lost for this question.
    • [Ian] The second comment is interesting: 'The test industry is moving toward a consolidation of the release of the proposed IEEE standards'. I'm not sure where that idea comes from.
    • [Carl] If it were from a tool vendor then I could see that they'd see a convenience if standards were released as a block.
    • [Ian] I think this was an end user.
    • [Carl] Well again, I know how difficult it is getting a new tool onto the Production floor, so consolidation would help.
    • [Brad] Consolidation of the release? I think we're seeing more orthogonal or tangential standards coming along.
    • [Heiko] Maybe we should ask the user to clarify what they meant. It's pretty obvious that we won't be ratifying anything soon!
    • [Ian] That's a good idea, Heiko. {ACTION}
    • [Ian] Third comment notes that the answers given were general, since the respondent was dealing with a variety of systems. That's no more than I'd expect from many of our users.
    • [Ian] The fourth comment was, I think, from one of our Swedish colleagues, and criticized the survey for it's complexity, and in some cases lack of options for the answers. In fairness we did originally want to split this survey up.
    • [Carl] It may have been even more complex for people who don't have English as their first language.
    • [Patrick] I have to agree, I found some of the questions very difficult to answer.
    • [Brad] OK, but the instruction page told you that you didn't need to answer all the questions.
    • [Patrick] Shouldn't there have been a 'Not Applicable' option then?
    • [Brad] You could just leave it blank, as the instructions said.
    • [Patrick] But my form was rejected because I'd missed one question!
    • [Ian] That should only happen on one of the questions with a red '*', which were the first two blocks, and that I felt everyone should be able to answer.
    • [Brad] Anyway, I think this person didn't read the instructions.
    • [Ian] That may be related to not being a native English speaker again.
    • [Ian] The last comment is pointing out that SJTAG needs to address the embedded and external cases and some ground in between, and I think we've already adopted that into our thinking.
    • [Ian] The next item is the first of the charts I was able to compile from the data. I haven't yet added the 'Other' responses in any way yet.
    • {'q1_2009' shared}
    • [Ian] Q1.4: The largest group of people in our survey were test development people: I don't think that's really a surprise. The only group we didn't get a response from was the device vendors.
    • [Ian] Q1.5: Largest proportion of responses is from our own group. However there are 26% that would like be part of the group in some way, so I guess we should follow up on that interest.
    • [Brad] Q2.1: I was surprised that there wasn't an option to say that I'd read both the original and the wiki versions of the White Paper.
    • [Ian] Yes, that's probably an omission. I guess I was thinking that if you'd read the wiki version, then that superceded the original.
    • [Brad] That's the way I read it.
    • [Ian] What's maybe worrying then is the large percentage of people who have not read the wiki version.
    • [Brad] That means we have some education to do. And the following questions, Q2.2 to the end of the section show that people haven't really read the White Paper.
    • [Heiko] These questions say 'In your opinion...': Maybe they just have a different opinion from the White Paper.
    • [Brad] The White Paper is pretty clear. It means our glossary and nomenclature is not getting through and is a good indication that as we work on Volume 3 we need to make things very crisp and clear-cut.
    • [Ian] Q3.1: About half the respondents are regularly involved in preparing JTAG board-level applications. Only one person seems not to have used JTAG.
    • [Ian] Q3.2: I was surprised that more than half claim to have already used JTAG at system level
    • [Brad] I was expecting maybe one-third. Well, it means we're talking to the right people.
    • [Ian] Q3.3: This one is interesting. I thought there was an error in my script because one respondent hasn't indicated knowledge of 1149.1.
    • [Heiko] Could be that they were drawn into this because of 1149.7 and didn't realise that it needs 1149.1.
    • [Brad] Or they're developer focussing on using emulation.
    • [Ian] Could easily be an omitted question or checkbox. I'd need to see the rest of the responses on that form to tell.
    • [Brad] I'm encouraged to see that the majority of respondents are aware of a lot of the standards work that is going on.
    • [Ian] Q3.4: A great majority of people are exclusively using externally controlled JTAG, no-one is claiming to be fully embedded, which surprised me.
    • [Brad] I guess they're thinking that they still need to be able get vectors in from the outside.
    • [Ian] True.
    • [Ian] Q3.5: As expected we have a fairly large usage of SVF, STAPL and tool supplied languages. The number of people using C/C++ ot C# was a bit more than I expected.
    • [Carl] That could be some people using C or C++ is ATE applications.
    • [Ian] Like LabWindows?
    • [Carl] Yes, that sort of thing.
    • [Brad] Some of those could also be where the embedded testing manager is written in C/C++ or C#.
    • [Ian] Yes. At one point, we toyed with breaking this question up to get at those different language layers, but then decided it was getting too complicated.
    • [Ian] Time is getting on and we're only on page three or nine here. I suggest we resume next meeting, by which time I should have more of the data extracted.
    • [Brad] I have some colleagues who might have liked to complete the survey, but missed it because of illness, etc. Could we perhaps mail out to those and ask if they would still like to take part.
    • [Ian] Yes I can do that. On the survey instructions page, I've disabled the link to the survey form, but on the JTAG home page I put a note to contact us if someone still wanted to fill in the survey. {ACTION}
    • [Brad] OK, let me know when you do that, as I have an overseas colleague that I'd like to send it to.

5. Schedule next meeting

Schedule for January 2010:
Monday January 18, 2010, 10:30 AM EST
Monday January 25, 2010, 10:30 AM EST

6. Any other business


7. Review new action items

8. Adjourn

Brad moved to adjourn at 11:41 AM EST, seconded by Patrick.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh