Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2013-04-29

Meeting called to order: 11:05 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Adam Ley
Brad Van Treuren
Harrison Miles

Eric Cormack
Patrick Au
Heiko Ehrenberg
Carl Walker

2. Review and approve previous minutes:


  • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.

3. Review old action items

  • 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
  • Harrison will attempt to come up with a table of use cases and their associated layer and what can be done at that layer. Ongoing.
  • Ian/All: Look for real world examples of boards that we could take through from board test to a system test implementation as a worked example case. Ongoing.
  • Ian: Draft newsletter with call for mailing list members to revalidate their interest. COMPLETE

4. Reminders

  • Consider Adam's three points (from the action from the first weekly meeting) and suggest what is preventing us from answering those questions:
    • Establish consensus on goals and constraints
    • What are we trying to achieve?
    • What restrictions are we faced with?
  • Forum thread for discussion: http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=172

5. Discussion Topics

Given the low attendance on the call Ian suggested limiting this meeting to a discussion of the draft newsletter.

  1. Newsletter
    • {Draft Newsletter shared}
    • Ian had corrected a typo that had been pointed out by Heiko, and then went on to explain some adjustments he had made to the layout, truncating the news items. These flowed past the bottom of the main content and wound push the links that the mailer adds to the footer out of sight of many readers. Brad suggested dropping some of the news items and adding instead a short note to say that more items were available with a link. Ian could do this by adding a section to the main content and link to the index of meeting minutes. Brad would also like to see the full text of the news abstracts restored, since they lost most of their value when truncated so he'd be happy to reduce the number of items to just four most recent ones to allow that to happen.
    • Regarding the item on revalidation of newsletter subscribers, Adam and Brad both thought it looked OK although Adam felt that making the request more personally directed and making more emphasis on the need to take action would improve the item. Ian agreed and would add a paragraph to do that.
    • In the main article, the request for design examples, Ian noted that the second list was intended to be bulleted rather than numbered. Brad suggested that maybe the request could be changed from seeking a 'design' to seeking a design abstract or design concept, since people are likely to be more comfortable releasing that level of information. Adam thought that was possibly less useful: It would need to offer sufficient information to accomplish the actions that were listed in the latter part of the article; would we have information on the board BScan tests? Brad felt this wasn't much different to the existing position when trying resolve issues with a tool vendor where it may be sufficient to share only a part of the design. Adam's point was that the deliverable items needed to be outlined. Brad repeated the view that much of the 'system design' was often not present in the CAD data anyway. Ian commented that this was an appeal for initial approaches; we could discuss what may or may not be possible with the person making the offer.
    • Brad noted that we can try later to define the protocols to automate the process with tools. Brad also felt that one of the problems was a lack of good base of knowledge about how people would use SJTAG. This was similar to position that P1687 was in initially where they created ICL around simple designs then found that special cases had to be created to deal with real world examples. Harrison felt that was the same problem that SJTAG would face and Ian added that the question we're faced with how we get the broader picture - we need to get end users to engage with us, but many will sit back until it becomes clear that SJTAG is making progress. Harrison agreed that people will hold back.
    • Harrison felt that more than a design abstract would be needed and suggested using one of the reference designs from one of the silicon vendors, since they were essentially public anyway. Ian and Brad thought it would need be something with more than just a single vendors part, but Harrison explained that he was referring to a full reference design and not just an evaluation board.
    • Ian proposed to amend the first list to allow a design abstract or concept to be offered, and to include the suggestion of a reference design. Since a significant number of changes had been proposed, Ian felt a redraft was needed. Since time was limited, he would get the redraft circulated today with a request for acceptance by email. {ACTION}

6. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

    7. Schedule next meeting

    Next Meeting:
    May 6. Patrick will be absent.

    May schedule:
    13 - Eric will be absent.

    8. Any other business

    • No reply yet from Bill Eklow on BTW plans.

    9. Review new action items

    • Ian: Update draft newsletter and circulate for email approval.

    10. Adjourn

    Brad moved to adjourn at 11:42 AM EDT, seconded by Adam.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Ian McIntosh