Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2017-06-26

Meeting called to order: 11:08 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker
Eric Cormack
Peter Horwood
Brian Erickson

By Proxy:
---

Excused:
Bill Eklow
Brad Van Treuren
Heiko Ehrenberg

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of June 19 minutes (draft circulated on 06/19/2017)
    • No corrections noted.
    • Eric moved to approve, second by Carl, no objections: Approved.

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.
  • Heiko to request SJTAG to be put on TTSC meeting agenda; suggest Adam request any material as needed prior to that call. 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
  • Possible invitation for Al Crouch to talk about Parallel SIBs.

5. Discussion Topics

a. TTSC meeting preparation.

  • As Ian had no internet access for this call, no material was shared on screen.
  • Heiko had contacted Adam Cron with a view to getting SJTAG on the TTSC agenda. Adam had provided a short list of items that he'd like in the first instance and Ian had circulated an email with his initial thoughts.
  • i. A list of potential WG members and their affiliations.
    • Ian thought the officers and Core group listed on the Members page of the website (http://www.sjtag.org/members) ought to be the starting point, although we obviously hoped to expand upon that.  Ian was concerned that the "Extended group" list was probably out of date so we might need to think about validating it somehow.  Eric suggested retitling it as "Observers".  Ian liked this idea as removed the suggestion that the extended group was, as a whole, in some way "active".
    • One other problem was that the status of those listed with "Emeritus" titles was ambiguous: While Brad is still active in the group Ben and Gunnar are not, so should probably not be counted as "members". Ian wondered about moving all three names into the Core or Observer lists and adding the Emeritus titles as annotations alongside their affiliations. 
  • ii. A URL where Study Group minutes will go.
    • Eric was confused about Working Group being mentioned  in the previous question when we thought we were discussing a Study Group. Ian had copied Adam's questions verbatim and simply assumed that the "WG" reference was a "slip of the pen".
    • The fact this was a question led Ian to believe that we would not be required to use IEEE services (e.g. a "grouper site") to post minutes. It was Ian's preference to continue to use our own resources, and if necessary post links on a grouper site to point to the SJTAG.org site. Eric agreed. One notable exception would be where protection of any draft standard would require that it is held in a password protected sub-section of the grouper site.
  • iii. A list of potential Study Group officers.
    • Ian had indicated that this might present a problem, since he was no longer an SA member. IEEE rules require that the chair and vice-chair of a standards WG are SA members. Eric believed that in the P1838 group all officers were required to be SA members. Ian's recollection was that the requirement was only for chair and vice-chair but acknowledged that the rules may have changed, and Ian was unsure how the rule affected Study Groups, having been unable to find a definitive reference. Some rules may be determined by the Sponsor.
    • Eric asked if TTSC were the sponsor. Ian replied that was the intent, due to the close relationship to the 1149.x and 1681 standards.  While approaching other sponsors might be possible, we don't have the connections.
    • Eric asked if a chair serves a fixed 2-year term.  Ian understood that the chair's term could be fixed or re-appointed annually depending on the Sponsor's local rules.  Given that the nominal lifespan of a standards group is four years there shouldn't be a lot of "churn" in officers, though Ian noted that even finding one chair could be difficult.
  • iv. A draft proposal of the problem being addressed.
    • While Ian's initial thought had been that the Need statement from our Scope, Purpose and Need ought to have been sufficient (http://files.sjtag.org/Brad/Final%20SPN%20Draft%2020160921.pptx), in re-reading it now, it seemed wordy and perhaps pompous and difficult to read. Eric also re-read it and was inclined to agree. Eric suggested that perhaps it should be a group action to look at the Scope, Purpose and Need and try to condense a statement of the problem from those {ACTION}.
  • Eric pointed out that the P1838 group had IEEE Observers overseeing proceedings and they had been quite emphatic that the meeting minutes (which were apparently similar in detail level to our own) needed to be "watered down", something that Eric disagreed with.  It seemed to be a flow-down from the IEEE, but without any obvious reason, and seemed strange if the group and notetaker were happy to work in that level of detail.  Peter agreed that being able to look back on the notes and get a "memory trigger" was very useful.  The only justification Ian could see was where some discussion of proprietary information might take place, e.g. as part of presenting an example and which needed to be protected from publication.
  • The other point that Eric note that the IEEE Observers were strict on was ensuring that the record of meeting attendees was correct and complete with the affiliations of participants.
  • In Michele's emailed response to Ian's email, he had suggested using LinkedIn and similar to "advertise", should we get the Study Group status. Ian agreed, but felt we'd need to use more than that as it was likely that many people only rarely check their LinkedIn accounts. That seemed to be confirmed by the responses of everyone on the call. Other channels would need to be used as well, in addition to our own mailing list. Twitter was an obvious channel, especially for reaching younger engineers, but would need to be targeted using the appropriate hashtags, which would need to be researched.
  • Eric asked when the TTSC meeting was, to judge how much time we had. Ian wasn't sure, but both he and Eric had the notion that it was July 12th.  That gave us two more meeting dates before the TTSC meeting, although was keen to be able to get responses back to Adam Cron as quickly as possible.
  • Post Meeting Note: The TTSC meeting is confirmed as July 12th.  Ian was also reminded that IEEE has its own mechanism (IEEE-SA Media Contact) for disseminating calls for participation, at least once a PAR is approved.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • TTSC meeting preparation.
  • Building Blocks - Use Case of a simple Interconnect Test - continuation.
    • Translating AccessLink specification.

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 July 3 (Carl will be out).
    • Eric wondered if more of the US members would be absent, only Carl commented.
  • July schedule:
    • 10, 17, 24.

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

  • All: Consider/propose how the existing Scope Purpose and Need might be condensed into a concise "Problem Statement" for TTSC.

12. Adjourn

  • Eric moved, Brian seconded.
  • Meeting adjourned at 11:59 AM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh