Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2009-08-31

Meeting called to order at 10:35 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Eric Cormack
Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker
Brian Erickson
Adam Ley
Brad Van Treuren
Heiko Ehrenberg
Tim Pender (joined 10:37)

Excused:
Patrick Au
Peter Horwood

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

8/10/2009 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 10th August:
  • No corrections were noted.
  • Eric moved to approve, seconded by Carl. No objections or abstentions.

8/24/2009 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 24th August:
  • In the seventh comment in topic 4a, replace "boars" with "boards".
  • Brian moved to approve with above correction, seconded by Eric. 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?
  • Establish whether TRST needs to be addressed as requirements in the ATCA specification if it is not going to be managed globally (All)
  • Adam review ATCA standard document for FRU's states
  • 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
  • Harrison: Virtual system exploiting Configuration/Tuning/Instrumentation and Root Cause Analysis/Failure Mode Analysis Use Cases. - Ongoing
  • Brad: Virtual system exploiting POST and BIST Use Cases. - Ongoing.
  • Ian: Virtual system exploiting Environmental Stress Test Use Cases. - Ongoing
  • All: Test at least part of the draft survey form and provide comments through forums. - Ongoing.
    http://www.sjtag.org/survey/forms/form1.html
    http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=83.
  • All: think about topics for upcoming SJTAG newsletter. - CANCELLED
  • Ian: Prepare draft of Newsletter for approval at next meeting. - COMPLETE.
  • Brad: Review survey updates and provide feedback to Ian. - COMPLETE.

4. Discussion Topics

  1. White Paper Review - Continuation on Device Versioning
    • [Ian] We still have work to do on Device Versioning. We really only got through the introductory paragraph and the Application Fields last time. This week I tried to edit the Detailed Description to reflect the kind of scope that last week's discussion had. I've left the old text in too, for reference, but I felt it was too focussed on firmware versioning.
    • [Ian] The first three paragraphs are my new suggested text; the fourth is the original.
    • [Brad] I think you've captured the essence of what needs to be described here.
    • [Brad] Some of the information in the sentence "However this may not always be enough to to unambiguously identify a board, ..." is appropriate for Consequences. Maybe it's OK to duplicate it though.
    • [Ian] Yes it could be part of consequences, but I felt it was important to understanding the concept of Device Versioning. I don't think there's a problem in making the statement in two places.
    • [Brad] The second bullet is maybe too general. In the example I gave last time, we used it to determine which units had a particular device fitted.
    • [Tim] It could be "Identifying compatible hardware"?
    • [Brad] "Configuration" is a word that gave us problems - it means different things to different people.
    • [Tim] Are we talking about hardware or firmware here?
    • [Brad] Well, it could be both.
    • [Ian] That's part of what gave us a problem: "Configuration" could refer to the version of the firmware used with an FPGA, or it could refer to the act of configuring the FPGA. Maybe our readers will be savvy enough to deduce what we mean from the context?
    • [Tim] I tend to use "configuration" for SRAM based devices and "programming" in the case of things like EPLDs.
    • [Ian] Maybe we can give an explanation in parenthesis, at the point we first refer to configuration?
    • [Brad] OK, let's try that.
    • {Ian started editing the text online}
    • [Brian] If you try to list everything you'll end up with a big list; the scope is everything from the system down to devices.
    • [Brad] Maybe our earlier graphic, that shows "assemblies" would be a better way to represent this?
    • [Ian] OK, a graphic might help here, but I'm not sure the one you're referring to, if I'm thinking of the same one, really shows the idea.
    • [Brad] Maybe not. I'm just trying to think of an alternative way of expressing the idea.
    • [Brian] We're taking about the system revision level and the revisions of all its constituent parts. Usually you have it documented as the system has a particular revision and that's all.
    • [Brad] We're spending a long time on a single word!
    • [Brian] I'll make a motion to defer this discussion to another meeting so we can move on.
    • [Heiko] I'll second that.
    • [Ian] Any objections?
    • {None voiced}
    • [Ian] We come back to this later, or maybe take it offline. {ACTION}
    • [Ian] Do we need to keep any of the old text from the description?
    • [Brad] At some point we need to bring out the point that any register or signal could be useful, so we can't just delete the whole paragraph. Maybe we can reword and add it to the end of the new text.
    • {Text was edited online, including reference to the GNAT protocol, as prompted by Brad}
    • [Tim] Is there a hyperlink for GNAT.
    • [Ian] Yes, it's referenced in our Glossary {demonstrated}. I'll add a link to the main wiki page later. I'm sure it's already referenced in one of the other use cases.
    • [Brad] I think the remainder can be deleted, now?
    • [Ian] We maybe need to keep the part about boards that are unable to boot.
    • [Brad] That could go into the Value Proposition.
    • [Ian] OK. There's some similar text there already; we'll keep both there for now, as we can sort that out when we come to that section.
    • [Ian] We have to move on, as there are other things we need to cover today.
  2. 2009 Survey
    • [Ian] Brad supplied me with feedback following last week's meeting. I updated the survey form and mailed out a note on the update.
    • [Ian] I guess I have to grumble that there's still little sign of anyone testing out the form.
    • [Ian] Brad did you look over the updates to see if I've implemented what you intended?
    • [Brad] I can't remember if I did - last week was pretty hectic.
    • [Ian] We made slight change to the last option on Q3.5, then added in Q3.6 on a standard language, Q3.7 on describing circuits and Q3.8 on assemblies of modules. "Assembly" was another word which we had some debate over.
    • [Brad] Yes, It was!
    • [Ian] Q3.9 is on reuse.
    • [Brad] Yes. If you have a set of board tests, do you want to be able to reuse them at system-level.
    • [Ian] That explanation is probably worth adding to a tool-tip for the question.
    • [Brad] It probably is.
    • [Ian] Tool-tips are one of the other things we need to be thinking about.
    • [Ian] In Q5.6 we added some more answer options.
    • [Brad] Yes, that was to capture some the kinds of things that Gunnar had been working on.
    • [Ian] Finally, in Q8.3 on hardware cost of SJTAG was amended.
    • [Brad] Yes, to uses percentages instead of dollar values.
    • [Ian] We probably want to state that this is a percentage of the total material cost?
    • [Brad] It should be qualified, yes.
    • [Ian] There are other things we need to consider, like the content of the invitation email, but not this week. I may send out some drafts for people to consider.
  3. Summer Newsletter
    • [Ian] I sent out a draft of the Newsletter towards the end of last week, so hopefully people had a chance to look at it before the weekend.
    • [Brad] It seems like you got everything in there you could have.
    • [Carl] It seems fine to me.
    • [Brad] The list of minutes helps to show that we have actually been busy!
    • [Ian] Are there any revision anyone would like to see made?
    • {None voiced}
    • Heiko moved to approve publication, seconded by Eric, no objections.
    • [Ian] OK, I'll get that sent out soon; maybe tonight. {ACTION}

5. Schedule next meeting

Schedule for September 2009:
Monday September 14, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT
Monday September 21, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT
Monday September 28, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT

6. Any other business

None.

7. Review new action items

  • Ian: Send out Newsletter within the next few days.
  • Brad/Brian/Ian: Produce clarification of the intended meaning and scope of the word "configuration" in the Device Versioning use case.

8. Adjourn

Brad moved to adjourn at 11:40 AM EDT, seconded by Eric.

Thanks to Heiko for taking additional notes this week.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh