Meeting66Minutes < P1647

P1647 Web>MeetingS>Meeting66Minutes (2010-10-20, BrettLammers) (raw view)EditAttach
<p align="center"> *Meeting 66* *Minutes* </p>

Teleconference, Monday, October 11, 2010, 1600 UTC; 9:00 am Pacific Daylight Time

_A quorum of 9_ <em>out of 9 voting members present. 2 non-voting members were also present. <br />Attendance and voter status indicated on the </em> _<a target="_blank" href="http://www.eda.org/twiki/pub/P1647/WebHome/ieee1647_online_roster.xls">on-line roster</a>_ _._

*Attendees*
   * Voting members 
      * Brett Lammers
      * Andrew Piziali
      * Darren Galpin
      * Serrie Chapman
      * Yaron Kashai
      * Joe Hupcey
      * Tucker Brown
      * Matan Vax
      * Henry Von Bank

   * Non-voting members 
      * Iraklis Diamantidis
      * Michael MacNamara

*1. Call to order meeting 66 on Oct 13th at 9:02 am PDT (16:02 UTC)*

*2. Approval of Sept 13th meeting 65 minutes*
   * Solicit motion to approve the meeting 65 minutes
   * Serrie C. motions to approve meeting 65 minutes
   * Joe H. seconded
   * Meeting 65 Minutes approved

*3. Status update*
   * *Ratification of the current draft* 
      * Working group Final vote did just pass the standard
      * In contact with Stan K. to start the IEEE standard balloting process
      * Forwarded link to group to join the SA balloting process
      * Yaron: Does Darren get to see balloting group? Darren: Yes I belive so. 
         * Yaron: This is important to make sure that the balloting group is sufficiently balanced
         * Darren: Will keep an eye on the group
   * <p> *Action Items* </p>
      * 1 Dec 08 Joe H. - will identify a driver customer for each language addition on the table and ask them to join the <strong><em>e</em></strong>WG and contribute both labor and, if necessary, funding. - Pending 
         * *Oct 11 Update* 
            * No Update
         * *Sept 13 Update* 
            * No Update
         * *July 26 Update* 
            * No Update
         * *June 21 Update* 
            * No update
         * *May 24 Update* 
            * No update
         * *April 19 Update* 
            * Identified some additional contacts in these areas (Named constraints, Defined as computed, Real data types) Waiting for follow-up
         * *March 8 Update* 
            * Yaron and Brett soliciting response from AE's and customers specific to the ports subject
            * Joe and Brett to follow-up week of 3/8 on possibly addressing some of the other topics in the same fashion
         * *February 8 Update* 
            * no new progress to report
         * *December 14 Update* 
            * Identified several customers that are active with the Real Number capability (India, Europe, and US)
            * Next step to contact local AE's for these customers. Will be following up first thing in the new year
         * *November 9 Update:* 
            * Darren did contact a colleague, Pim Palmen, who is willing to get involved. Contact details sent to Matan
            * Joe did follow up with some internal Cadence contacts who provided some customers that Joe is going to start following up on
         * *Oct 12 Update:* 
            * Joe has not made any progress on identifying customer drivers
            * Joe to provide a report on reflector upon contacting list of individuals
         * *Sept 14 Update*: 
            * Joe: Was able to set aside some real focused time and was able to find contacts for each feature
            * Joe: Next step is start contacting the people found directly or through appropriate AEs
            * Joe: Interesting note that the decision to set aside the "temporal coverage" feature seemed to track as no issues found in the support database related to that feature
            * Andy: Missing results on temporal coverage not surprising. Intel using in house solution.
            * Andy: Might be worth double checking with Ziv and/or Intel on the "temporal coverage" feature.
            * Matan: Had a short chat on temporal coverage with Shlomi (Specman R&D) who seemed to be in favor of the feature
            * Andy: Appreciate Shlomi's input. However, need to identify customers to drive this feature.
            * Darren: One difference for temporal coverage is that it is a fresh development and therefore requires more work
            * Andy: That is correct
         * <p> *Aug 10 Update*: <br />Joe - Very limited progress. Database can be searched but it is difficult to really develop a pattern and draw conclusions. Will attempt again when back from vacation<br />Joe - Another tack might be to contact members that have been past members but have dropped out attendance wise. Will follow up after roster has been updated <br />Darren - The on-line roster has been updated to better reflect active or interested members<br />Andy - Have we thought about a blanket email to all AE's?<br />Joe - Yes that is a thought. Waiting until after the vacation "season" ends.</p>
         * <p> *13 July:* Little progress to date, and it is rather challenging as it isn't easy to extract the info - it will take more time. Is there a list on-line of those who used to participate? If there is, we need to look at it and purge it - we need to look at the roster and purge it of those who are not interested, as some are not doing verification any more.<br />Darren: I'll check the roster against the mailing list.<br />Brett: Perhaps check why some people took themselves off the list? [Note: two did, Carl Walker from Cisco, and Alan Ahlschlager from Cadence].<br />Serrie: Perhaps only check against people who have ever attended a meeting?<br />Brett: Agreed<br />Joe H: Agreed<br />Darren: The problem is that I do not have that information, as only the results of the past four meeting was kept for voting privileges.<br />Joe H: Perhaps Andy has the information?</p>
         * <p> *6 June:* No progress to date.</p>
         * <p> *11 May:* Brett and Joe now have access to the support database so they can search for relevant customers for each features. They will be working with their AEs on this. Brett has not yet figured how to extract the needed information but it will be labor intensive.</p>
         * <p> *13 Apr:* Joe asked Alan Ahlschlager if he and Brett Lammers can access the support database.</p>
         * <p> *6 Mar:* Joe is coordinating this with CDNS Support, correlating enhancement requests with P1647-2010 features. Expected to be a somewhat slow process as service requests are not currently categorized by language construct.</p>
   * *Editor Slot*
   * 
      * <p> *Oct 11 Update* </p>
         * <p>No Update</p>
      * <p> *Sept 13 Update* </p>
         * <p>Will create new draft for ratification</p>
         * <p>Proposal to create a version for WG balloting that contains change bars.</p>
         * <p>Draft for SA balloting will not contain change bars</p>
      * <p> *July 26 Update* </p>
         * <p>Been working to turn around any Mantis issues in about 1 day.</p>
      * <p> *June 21 Update* </p>
         * <p>Amy will release a new draft after reviewing any new issues from Matan</p>
         * <p>Amy will also need a list of reviewers to add to the document</p>
      * <p> *May 24 Update* </p>
         * <p>waiting for Mantis issues to be resolved and produce a new draft.</p>
      * <p> *April 19 Update* </p>
         * <p>Need to talk to someone about using Mantis (Darren to follow-up after meeting)</p>
      * <p> *March 8 Update* </p>
         * <p>Have not had time to make much progress since the last meeting but should be starting back up soon</p>
      * <p> *February 8 Update* </p>
         * Should code examples be removed? 
            * Yes examples longer then a small syntactic example should be removed. This was the practice in the previous releases
         * Should references to Specman Docs be removed? 
            * Yes non public references should be removed. This was the practice in the previous releases

*4. Other business*
   * *Any other business?* 
      * Andrew: Might want to start considering topics that were left out of the standard just submitted 
         * Darren: Asside from the one coverage item all submitted topics were included
         * Andy: is the predominant implementation of the LRM in line with the spec (i.e. Specman)
         * Darren: Yes with the possible exception around named constraints. Up to Cadence to figure that out and adjust appropriately if needed.
      * Mail a message to <a target="_blank" href="mailto:ieee1647@edaNOSPAM.org">ieee1647@edaNOSPAM.org</a> (the general email reflector) if you were not recorded in these minutes

*5. Call for essential patents*
   * <p>The IEEE-SA updated the patent policy effective April 2008</p>
   * <p>The details are available in updated slide set at <a target="_blank" href="http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf">http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf</a>. (See "Patent related" from the IEEE 1647 home page, "Slides About IEEE Patent Policy").</p>
   * <p>If you believe that any patent claims are essential patent claims, please inform the working group. Review the posted slides for more information.</p>

*6. Next meeting*
   * <p>Dec 13th at 9 am PST (<span style="color: #ff0000;" class="WYSIWYG_COLOR"> *1700 UTC* </span>) *Note the UTC time change* </p>

*7. Adjourn*
   * <p>Andrew P. motioned</p>
   * <p>Yaron K. seconded</p>
   * <p>Motion approved</p>
   * <p>Meeting adjourned at 10:11 PDT (16:11 UTC)</p>

-- Main.BrettLammers - 2010-10-11
Topic revision: r3 - 2010-10-20 - 15:24:11 - BrettLammers
P1647