Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2007-12-10

Participants:

Adam Ley
Ian McIntosh
Brad Van Treuren
Peter Horwood
Carl Nielson
Heiko Ehrenberg

Meeting was called to order at 8:10am EST

1. Roll Call (See list above)

2a. Review of meeting minutes for 11/26/2007

Motion to approve by Heiko, Second by Ian

2b. Review of meeting minutes for 12/3/2007

Motion to approve by Ian, Second by Adam

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)
  • Provide feedback of more use cases not yet identified to Brad (All)
  • Review tables (Goals vs. use case matrix) on slides 38-41; (All)
  • Register on new SJTAG web site (http://www.mcintoshuk.plus.com/sjtag/) (All)
  • All need to check and add any missing Doc's to the site (All)
  • Respond to Brad and Ian with suggestions for static web site structure (Brad suggests we model the site after an existing IEEE web site to ease migration of tooling later) (All)
  • Look at proposed scope and purpose from ITC 2006 presentation (attached slides) and propose scope and purpose for ATCA activity group (All)
  • Look at use cases and capture alternatives used to perform similar functions to better capture value add for SJTAG (All)

Brad: Reminder we need to create a scope and purpose for this discussion group. Proposed scope and purpose from ITC 2006 slides as a bases to work from. The Group is to review and comment towards the formulation of the goals and scope and purpose for SJTAG on ATCA.

4. SJTAG Email reflector overview postponed since Carl Walker did not attend

5. Discussion Topics

  1. Operating procedures for group (e.g., what constitutes a quorum)
    • Brad: We need to define the operation of the group, and try to adhere to IEEE processes
    • Ian: From last week, 4 should be the absolute minimum for holding a meeting
    • Peter: Approximately 25% of the registered attendees
    • Ian: For the purpose of approving the minutes, you only need a couple of people who attended the meeting
    • Ian: not all members are joining calls
    • Heiko: maybe a percentage of those members that regularily join calls
    • Brad: I think we need a defined number, e.g. 3 or 4?
    • Ian: We all felt that 3 was too few to do any serious work
    • Brad: Is 3 too small for approving meeting minutes?
    • Ian: I still think 4 would be a good number
    • Heiko: It should be the majority of these who regularly attend the calls. There will always be a few people who cannot make them.
    • Ian: 4 seems to be a good number
    • Adam: That seems to be a logistics problem. 4, as example, the chair cannot vote unless to break a tie and 3 are then needed. I suggest we target 50% instead of a fixed number.
    • Adam: 50% of attendees of previous meeting for approval of minutes; maybe more pressing thing is to determine how one gets on the group roster and remains on it
    • Ian: With the time difference, not all may attend so the reality is 50% actually can make the meetings for those signed up.
    • Adam: A quorum is usually based on a well defined roster. How do you get yourself on the roster? How do you maintain yourself on the roster? Eventually, we will have to work from a well defined roster.
    • Peter and Ian: 50% sounds reasonable
    • Adam: Made a motion for 50% of the attendees of a meeting are required to approve the minutes. Peter seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.
    • Brad: How do we want to define who gets on the roster?
    • Heiko: For P1581, you must attend 3 meetings in a row to vote. You must not miss more than 2 consecutive meetings to be able to vote.
    • Brad: indicated that you should attend 2 weeks before you can vote
    • Adam: we need to be careful to make sure that people have the chance to attend enough meetings (meeting time difficult in some areas)
    • Peter: The suggestion of an alternate meeting time would be able to accommodate this
    • Brad: Patrick's suggestion for Wednesday mornings would still cause the same problems for folks in Asia;
    • Brad: Indicates that we still need to work on the time slot as there are 2 in china that wish to participate, will contact and ask for good time.
    • Brad: I will contact Guoqing and get his input on this subject
    • Adam: How about electronic voting, allowing all members to participate in voting decisions?
    • Adam: All votes could occur electronically within 24 hours as an alternative to voting during a meeting
    • Heiko: I suggest we use the Forum for votes
    • Adam: Published meeting minutes is necessary for electronic voting to work
    • Brad: We are not going to solve this one today until we find out information from Asia
  2. SJTAG Value Proposition
    • What is the best way to capture the impact SJTAG may have on a system?
      • Identify alternative methods than SJTAG use for cost comparison.
      • Clearly annotate benefits and deficiencies of each method
      • Break out into smaller discussions to tackle specific areas
      • ATCA working group is looking for documentation on demonstrating the value of supporting SJTAG in the standard
    • Brad: Gave an overview of the background of the use cases and what people discussed during the last meeting. Proposed we use small focus groups to address the alternatives for the SJTAG use cases.
    • Brad:- talked through 5b , indicating the value added proposition of remote field updates etc, do we need to split out into small groups to target specific use cases? We want to achieve a document that IEEE will have a justification to why this should be added to ATCA spec.
    • Brad: Looking at the value add of what boundary-scan has over other options (i.e., previously embedded code in system)
    • Heiko: Good to get everyone's ideas and not just the ideas from a few on each use case. I suggest we work as the entire group on each topic.
    • Heiko: Having a larger group may allow a higher degree of different view points
    • Brad: The goal of small groups is to prepare off-line to make the meetings more efficient
    • Heiko: I like the idea of preparing in small groups for larger group discussion
    • Heiko: a smaller group could prepare something that could then be reviewed and commented on by all during conference calls;
    • Ian: Could post proposal on forum and discuss there. Could pick one or two per meeting to focus on.
    • Ian: Could post each use case as a separate forum topic and choose high runners for meeting discussion
    • Brad: Is there any problems with using the forum for use case discussion?
    • Heiko: The forum allows people time to think about their responses.
    • Ian: I propose to use the forum for use case discussion
    • Heiko: I second it.
    • All: Approved the use of the SJTAG Forum for discussing use case alternatives and value propositions

6. Next meeting scheduled for 12/17/2007 at 8:00am EST

7. Review new action items

  • Contact Guoqing regarding alternate meeting time process (Brad)
  • Set up Use Case categories for forum discussions (Ian)
  • Volunteers needed for Use Case Forum ownership (All)
  • Send Ian list of volunteers for Use Case champions (Brad) (Only Ian responded to request)

8. Other business

Adam: Should we consider a Wednesday meeting time for next week? There was a discussion that led to the vote to defer meeting on alternate days until 2008 since next week will most likely be the final meeting in 2007. This is due to the fact that we do not have input from the folks in Asia yet.

Meeting adjourned at 9:10am EST

Many thanks to Adam, Heiko, and Peter for supplying their notes to assist in recording the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
Brad