Meeting Minutes - 2010-10-04

Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2010-10-04

Meeting called to order: 10:36 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Brad Van Treuren
Adam Ley
Tim Pender
Carl Walker
Patrick Au
Brian Erickson
Heiko Ehrenberg

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

9/27/2010 minutes:

  • Updated draft circulated on 9/29/2010.
  • No further corrections noted.
  • Motion to approve by Heiko, Seconded by Tim, no objections or abstentions.

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?
  • 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)
  • Ian/Brad: Draft "straw man" Volume 4 for review - Ongoing
  • All: Review "Role of Languages" in White Paper Volume 4 - Ongoing
  • All: Review 'straw man' virtual systems and notes on forums:
    http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=109. - Ongoing
  • All: Add to, or comment on, the bullet point list of architecture drivers. - Ongoing.
  • All: Provide forum comment on the graphics used during the meeting; suggest "building blocks" that may be used in future:
    http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=29&p=257#p257 - Ongoing.
  • ALL: review / comment in preparation for upcoming meetings. - Ongoing
  • Tim: Draft matrix of SJTAG features against evolving solution options. - Ongoing.
  • All: Post suggestions for key SJTAG gateway features on the forum (Ian will create topic) - Ongoing
  • All: Post suggested draft texts for survey comments in existing 2009 Survey thread (http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=83) - Ongoing
  • Carl: Contact Zoe about what material we could obtain for our use. - Ongoing
  • Ian/Brad: Condense gateway comments and queries into a concise set of questions. - Ongoing
  • [Ian] I've been struggling to get the time to progress the action, and I guess Brad has been finding the same.
  • [Brad] No time.
  • [Ian] I want to push this down in priority anyway as there are some other things I think we need to address prior to ITC and that's reflected in the agenda for today. We will come back to this.
  • [Patrick] When is ITC?
  • [Ian] First week of November; the main 'core' is Tuesday - Thursday.

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Texts for Survey Result web pages
    • [Ian] We started this a while ago but it didn't really get anywhere. I really want to have this survey material nailed down for ITC.
    • {Forum post "Follow-up User Survey (2009) Results" shared, http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=124}
    • {Draft Survey webpage shared, http://www.sjtag.org/survey2009/survey1.html}
    • [Ian] This may be a little awkward as we'll need to keep flipping between the webpages with the charts and the forum posts with the text. Do we think we can just work through this in order?
    • [Brad] I think that's what we should do.
       
    • 1.4
    • [Ian] Are there any changes needed here?
    • [Brad] I wouldn't suggest any.
    • [Heiko] Maybe instead of Device Vendor we should say 'IC' or 'Silicon'?
    • [Patrick] I don't know about 'silicon'; your comment about not getting a response from device vendors could equally apply to board vendors.
    • [Ian] We had an 'Other' category that got no responses. I guess we could say that any category that isn't listed didn't respond.
    • [Patrick] Yes, or system vendors.
    • [Brad] A lot of system vendors may be represented under Test Development Engineers, or Manufacturing Engineers.
    • [Ian] So, do we amend?
    • [Brad] I'd say we need to stay consistent with the text in the question.
    • [Brian] I say leave it as is, noting that we understand the complexity in the question.
       
    • 1.5
    • [Brad] We could put something in to add "and it is a pleasure for the group to see this high a percentage of interest."
       
    • 2.1
    • [Brad] I think this is good.
    • [Ian] Any other comments?
    • [Patrick] Nope.
       
    • 2.2, 2.3, 2.4
    • [Ian] These were the test questions to see if people had read the White Paper, but rather than word it that way I've said that our nomenclature isn't getting across.
    • [Brad] That's a smart move, to put the ownership on us. In the response answers, we've probably hit the spectrum of what people think these are.
    • [Brad] What this tells is that we're not getting the message across in a way that brings the industry together. It also shows how industry is fragmented in its understanding of what SJTAG is all about.
    • [Ian] Can we expand these comments?
    • [Brad] I'm not sure you can expand them. The white Paper is not achieving it's goal. We thought that, and this is confirming our fears.
    • [Tim] The only way to add anything would be to add in what the correct answers were.
    • [Ian] Which would probably be the 'no, you got it wrong' put down that I was trying to avoid.
    • [Brad] Maybe we can word in a justification for the new White Paper. Explain that this is the reason for the new White Paper and encourage people to review the wiki, since the old White Paper isn't working.
       
    • 2.5
    • [Ian] We got a breadth of responses that encompass just about every permutation of answer possible.
    • [Brad] I wonder if we could put in "This is demonstrating the difficulty in defining the SJTAG activity and is why we haven't rushed into preparing a PAR before we have a clear understanding of the issues involved."
       
    • 3.1
    • [Ian] There are a couple of typos to fix in this one.
    • [Brad] That's fine otherwise.
       
    • 3.2
    • [Brad] Good. It provides glue between Q3.1 and Q3.2.
       
    • 3.3
    • [Ian] I wasn't sure about pointing out the clearly incorrect answer here, but I thought it might lighten the tone and also point out that we're assessing and interpreting the results and not just collecting numbers at face value.
    • [Brad] Well clearly there are some discrepencies and that is the most obvious one.
    • [Brad] The other thing we don't really know from this is whether it is just a handful of people that aren't aware of the standards activities.
    • [Ian] Well, when you consider the earlier responses, we know that these are generally people with experience of JTAG and often applying it at system level, so they're not unsophisticated users.
    • [Brad] That's an interesting point: Maybe that means that the TTTC message on standards development isn't getting across.
    • [Ian] I know I've run in-house briefings in here on the JTAG related standards work, because I find people don't have the time or inclination to find out about them for themselves.
    • [Brad] I think industry has become too stressed for people to have the time to become educated in these things. That also affects participation in the standards work.
    • [Ian] Yes, I think that the recession has forced most companies to focus on "productivity now".
  2. ITC - Fringe Meeting, Poster
    • [Ian] Now that the fringe meeting schedule is available in the ITC Advance Program, I want to send out a meeting invitation to the Newsletter mailing list, but think I need to have some kind of agenda for the meeting.
    • [Ian] On the assumption that we get a few new people along, I'm happy enough to start out with a brief on the state of SJTAG, but I then want to try to get some discussion that ultimately helps the group.
    • [Ian] I want to avoid a sort of Q and A session, since that's really what the joint poster session is - "Meet the Working Groups".
    • [Tim] When is the meeting?
    • [Ian] On the Thursday, 10-12.
    • [Brad] Looking back, in 2006, we went through the survey results. That took most of the meeting. In 2007, I think Heiko and Adam were there and we had something on ATCA and we went through the Use Cases.
    • [Heiko] We never got really involved in that.
    • [Brad] We had the Use Case Venn diagram.
    • [Ian] Maybe we can work with the building block diagrams then.
    • [Brad] When I saw your agenda I tried to think what I'd do: For the poster, I think we should have excerpts from our slides. For the active display, running in the background maybe a high level overview.
    • [Brad] A lot of what is on the wiki now is a result of the 2007 discussions.
    • [Ian] I probably need to ask Bill exactly how he sees this working, what space we have, etc., as he was talking about having two groups to a table.
    • [Brad] What I found to be most useful during the Poster was having diagrams I could point to.
    • [Ian] Brad, at the 2008 Poster, I think you also had some of the trifold leaflets?
    • [Brad] Yes I did.
    • [Ian] I was planning on having some of those too - I think they're still relevant.
    • [Brad] Yes. I'm also trying to find my rolling presentation in my archives.
    • [Ian] So we're saying that for the Poster we want to have the Building Blocks on the Poster and the survey on the rolling display. Then we can discuss the building blocks in the Fringe Meeting.
    • [Patrick] Is anyone planning to video anything for those that can't attend?
    • [Ian] Not that I'm aware of. I think if that happened then it'd only reduce attendances.
  3. White Paper Volume 3 - Key Gateway Features:
    • {Not discussed due to lack of time}

5. Schedule next meeting

October 11th - Tim and Heiko will likely miss

Schedule for October 2010:
18th
25th

6. Any other business

The motion on signal naming conventions from the meeting of May 3rd remains tabled.

7. Review new action items

None.

8. Adjourn

Tim moved to adjourn at 11:42 AM EDT, seconded by Patrick.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh