Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2016-11-30

Meeting called to order: 11:07 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker
Eric Cormack
Brian Erickson
Adam Ley
Peter Horwood (joined 11:10)
Bill Eklow (joined 11:19)

By Proxy:

Heiko Ehrenberg
Brad Van Treuren

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of October 26 minutes (draft circulated on 10/26/2016)
    • No corrections noted.
    • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.

  • Approval of November 2 minutes (draft circulated on 11/02/2016)
    • No corrections noted.
    • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval

  • Approval of November 9 minutes (updated draft circulated on 11/13/2016)
    • No corrections noted.
    • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.

  • Approval of November 23 minutes (updated draft circulated on 11/23/2016)
    • No corrections noted.
    • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.

  • Due to the number of notes outstanding for approval, Ian proposed to put these out for email approval. No objections. {ACTION}

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 (http://files.sjtag.org/Ericsson-Nov2006/STAPL-Ideas.pdf)
  • Ian: Add the previously discussed lists to the 'master' template. Ongoing.
    • Some sections need further expansion that may take time to develop.
  • Ian: Add further "context" notes to the Key Takeaways sheet.
    • Ian has added context notes through to the end of the Key Takeaways and forwarded to Brad. 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
  • The Newsletter was due at the end of July 2015.
  • {Peter joined}

5. Discussion Topics

a. Enumerate our requirements
- What are we trying to implement?
- Review previous Key Takeaways for relevant ideas - continue from row 65

  • As Brad was not on the call Ian felt it was logistically too difficult to manage the two spreadsheets we had been using and run the call.

b. PAR text feedback
- Comments (if any) from ITC
- Newsletter/LinkedIn post

  • Ian had circulated a draft newsletter on the PAR Scope, Purpose and Need {shared}.
  • Ian wondered if Bill had the opportunity during ITC to elicit any feedback on the text. Adam wasn't aware of any discussion and noted that the only reference he knew of was in Michele's paper presentation and then only in an iJTAG context.
  • Ian noted that the newsletter made reference to the final Green Paper in the series that Brad had been writing. Ian was reluctant to issue the newsletter with that reference before confirming that Brad was still happy to write that article.
  • In preparing the Need statement, the focus had been altered from the "end user's need" to become a justification for the Sponsor's benefit: Ian wondered if that needed explained or if the current Need statement was still good enough for end users.  Eric felt it still worked for end users.
  • {Bill joined}
  • Bill confirmed that he had not spoken to anyone during ITC about the PAR text, but felt that with Adam, Heiko and himself, along with Jeff Rearick also being aware of what we were doing, the group already had a reasonable TTSC representation.
  • Ian was concerned that the group may be to close to the material to review it objectively and getting outside inspection was necessary, hence the notion of circulating via the Newsletter and LinkedIn.
  • Adam and Bill could take the text to the TTSC to get feedback. Feedback would occur anyway when a request is submitted but early feedback could allow most issues to be resolved ahead of time.  Bill expected that we should get good feedback from this.
  • Adam asked if the intent was to go directly to PAR or to request Study Group Status first.  This had been discussed previously and the opinion was that a Study Group was desirable to help build the group and refine the PAR. Adam noted that advanced circulation of the test was not essential but getting alignment with the expectations of Adam Cron, as the incoming TTSC Chair, on the requirements for a Study Group and remarked that an example was available as Steve Sunter had submitted a proposal in November and was asked to provide additional material. This was to be discussed at the TTSC Meeting nest week (coinciding with our regular slot) - anyone is welcome to join the TTSC meeting and the WebEx details will be posted on the Grouper site (http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/ttsg).
  • Ian felt he was hearing that TTSC should be consulted before circulating anything to the broader public. Adam said that wasn't the case but it should be made very clear that the material does carry any implication that it has been sanctioned by anyone other than the group itself and nor is currently on any track towards such sanction. Ian agreed that this was probably not clear enough in the current article and would re-draft to clarify that {ACTION}.
  • Bill felt that in presenting a case for a Study Group, the focus should be on the Need - what the problem was that is to be addressed. Adam noted that Scope and Purpose were useful but was slightly inclined to suggest that Need should come first in any case, and reiterated the need not to imply any kind of authority, perhaps by putting something in parentheses after the section titles to highlight the unofficial status.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Enumerate our requirements - continued
    • What are we trying to implement?
    • Review previous Key Takeaways for relevant ideas - continue from row 65.

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • None.
  • Carried over:
    • Definition of "interchangeability" required.
    • 'Instance' (or a more specific version of the term) may require definition in future.
    • 'Master through Slave Mode'
    • 'Master to Master Mode'
    • Need a refined definition of "system" for the purposes of the PAR.
    • 'Priority' - may relate to 'frequency' and 'urgency' in distinct definitions.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting December 7. Note that the TTSC meeting is at the same time (see link in notes).
  • December schedule:
    • 14, 21.
    • Ian and Eric will be out Dec 21, possibly others too, so a meeting may not be viable on that date.

10. Any other business

  • Ian hopes Michele will be able to provide a fuller report on the TESTA tutorial in due course.

11. Review new action items

  • Ian: Send out request for email approvals on the outstanding notes, Oct 26 through to Nov 23. 
  • Ian: Re-draft newsletter to make it clear that there is no official sanction of the proposed PAR text.

12. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn, seconded by Brian.
  • Meeting adjourned at 11:44 AM EST

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh