Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2017-07-31

Meeting called to order: 11:05 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh (Leonardo MW Ltd.)
Carl Walker (Cisco Systems)
Brad Van Treuren (Nokia)
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)
Heiko Ehrenberg (Goepel Electronics)
Peter Horwood (Firecron Ltd.)
Eric Cormack (DFT Solutions Ltd.) (joined 11:14)

By Proxy:


2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of July 24 minutes (draft circulated on 07/24/2017)
    • No corrections noted.
    • Brad moved to approve, seconded by Carl, no objections or abstentions.

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 suggested that both of the above actions would no longer be relevant or appropriate to the study group which, as a new entity, should be starting from a clean sheet. There were no objections to Ian cancelling off these legacy actions.
  • Ian: Submit invite text to Adam Cron for approval. COMPLETE
    • The invite was agreed with Adam Cron and then sent out after a couple of further minor revisions.
  • Heiko: Contact Bill regarding planning for ITC poster session. COMPLETE
    • Bill would get back to Heiko later in the week but initially expected the posters to be in the exhibition hall over lunchtime, as last year. It was unclear if there was a "requirement" to remove posters immediately after the session.
  • Ian: Circulate P1838 P&P to group. 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
  • [Post Meeting Note] The reminder above may also need to be dropped, as with the legacy actions in section 3.
  • Possible invitation for Al Crouch to talk about Parallel SIBs.

5. Discussion Topics

-. Participation Invite responses

  •  Ian had so far received five notes of interest:  All were known, directly or indirectly, by members on the call. A couple of those people may only want to be observers at this time.
  • A new Members page will be required for the website, but Ian will retain a copy of the current one on a "legacy" page as a historical record.  For completeness, Ian thought that perhaps current members ought to explicitly state their intention to participate in the study group, rather than it simply being assumed. This was maybe most relevant in terms of those people that had not joined a call for some time.
  • The mailing lists will also need to be updated:
    • The reflector - Carl believes it is up-to-date and all names on it are relevant.  Ian will pass on the new member details, but they should not be added until after the invite for the meeting on August 7 has gone out (to avoid confusion over the "start" date for the study group meetings).
    • The "group" address - it may be redundant after the study group forms as the reflector, with the wider distribution, will probably need to be used for most things.
    • The Newsletter mailing list - this probably has a small number of names that are no longer relevant. Ian can set this to request all users to reaffirm their wish to be on the list. It should probably be a match with the reflector list anyway. 
  • Some of the enquirers had noted that they would like to learn more about SJTAG. Ian felt that simply pointing to the website wasn't very helpful and would have liked a "thumbnail sketch" of SJTAG. Ian wondered if the slidepack that Heiko had prepared for the TTSC could be adapted for the purpose. Heiko thought it would, if the draft Scope and Purpose slides were removed, and he would amend the pack accordingly.

a. Review of P1838 Policies and Procedures

  • We are probably not obliged to issue formal P&P as a study group but can instead use the P1838 document as "guidance". Ian wanted to got through the P1838 P&P in order to highlight where our existing practices might be at odds with those in the newer document (Adam Cron had offered the P1838 document as a good example to follow). Eric believed it wasn't too far from what we do anyway, although Ian was aware that the existing SJTAG P&P was adapted from the P1687 P&P which was not fully compliant with IEEE rules.
  • Notable points:
    • 3.1 Election of Officers - Where does the Elections Officer come from? The group or the wider TTSC? Heiko noted that this role is appointed by the TTSC and could be from the group, but may not be. If it is a group member then that person is not eligible to stand for any of the roles in the election.
    •  3.4.1 Chair and 3.4.3 Secretary - Responsibilty b) (distribution of the meeting agenda) had been removed from the Secretary and transferred to the Chair as responsibility p) (when compared wirth the baseline template procedures). Ian saw a practicality to that which Eric expanded upon explaining that within P1838 the agenda was published on the website. Ian felt this was "passive" as it expected the members to look for it rather than it being sent to them. Brad noted that what we currently did was combine the agenda with the notice of meeting, which still seems to be within the Secretary's responsibility a).
    • 3.4.3 Secretary - Due to the original item b) having been moved, the red guidance text referring to "60-day shaded value in item c)" actually refers to what is now "5 calendar days" in item b). Ian noted the requirement to publish minutes within 5 days and noted that we tended to circulate a draft of the minutes and then approve them for publication at the next meeting, so generally 7 days later. However, Eric described P1838 following a process very similar to ours - "publishing" seems to be taken as "distributing the draft".
    • 4.1.1 Working Group Membership - In essence, new members gain voting rights immediately on first attendance at a meeting, thereafter retention of rights requires attendance at three of the last five meetings. "Attendance" means being present for at  least 50% of the meeting duration.
    • 4.3 Working Group Membership Roster - This is not to be public unless all members agree in writing.  The sensitive items are probably the email addresses and attendance history/voting status, given the public information allowed in 4.4.
    • 6.1 Quorum - Quorum is defined to be one half of all the voting members of the group. This different to our convention where approval of meeting minutes requires 50% of the voting eligible attendees of the meeting in question to approve. Other votes are generally in line with the P1838 definition. Brad noted that this could mean people who were not present at a meeting being able to vote on approval of the minutes. No decisions can be taken or motions made when the meeting does not have a quorum, although other business and discussion can take place.
    • 7 Voting and 1.0.5 Definitions - Ian noted that the P1838 document had added a definition of a "technical motion" and note on voting on such by subgroups. However, in reading 7.1 Approval of an Action and it's sub-clauses, Ian gained the impression that what was meant by "Action" here was what we would know as a motion (setting an action does not generally require approval, merely acceptance by the actionee). If that were correct then the "technical motion" might really be a "technical action" for consistency.  However, it was agreed that this was semantic issue not important to us at this stage.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Outline of agenda for "kick-off" meeting on Aug 14:
    • Introductions of all members
    • Offices - acting positions, plan for elections
    • What section? do we want to keep in the minutes? Key takeaways? Glossary?
      • Brad noted that P1687.1 was finding a need for a rolling glossary, due to the number of terms encountered that lacked definitions.

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

  • August 7.
  • August 14, 21, 28.

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

  • None.

12. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn, seconded by Brad.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:10 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh