Minutes from the 27 July IBIS Editorial Task Group meeting are attached.
* MM
=======================================================================
IBIS EDITORIAL TASK GROUP
http://www.ibis.org/editorial_wip/ ;
Mailing list: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Archives at //www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-interconn/ ;
=======================================================================
Attendees from July 27, 2018 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio)
ANSYS Curtis Clark
Cadence Design Systems Bradley Brim
Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak*
Keysight Technologies Radek Biernacki*
Mentor, A Siemens Business Arpad Muranyi*
Micron Technology Justin Butterfield, Randy Wolff
SiSoft Walter Katz*, Mike LaBonte*
Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross
Michael Mirmak convened the meeting. No patents were declared.
Bob Ross cannot attend this initial meeting. Through a separate e-mail,
he expressed willingness to handle the hierarchy and tree portions of the
IBIS 7.0 document.
Mike LaBonte thanked the participants for joining the Editorial Task Group.
He noted a lull in IBIS activity with the suspension of IBIS Interconnect, in
anticipation of IBIS 7.0.
Michael reviewed the agenda topics:
- Draft numbering?
- Draft file naming?
- Numbered tracking list of known issues to resolve?
- Where to post documents?
- Shall the Interconnect Task Group remain suspended?
On draft numbering, Mike noted that "there was confusion" in the
Interconnect Task Group regarding the status of various drafts.
Michael asked whether approval by this task group of working versions was
required before releasing a draft number. He noted that the Interconnect
format would make documents follow the
convention below:
IBIS 7.0, Draft 1, Version 5
Mike noted that, for Interconnect, multiple people could make changes to the
official document, using each other's edits, between meetings. He
suggested adding the author name to the document number, as in:
7.0.1.1.mirmak1
Arpad Muranyi expressed a desire to keep the chronology as part of the file
name. It's important to know which document is the new revision vs. the
previous version; names lose this.
Walter Katz added that the problem was two people making changes to the same
draft in parallel. He suggested having one master editor, but no two drafts
in parallel.
Radek Biernacki asked whether the team can keep drafts associated with the
meetings? Others may suggest text but not necessarily own the document.
Changes would be assigned to a given person per each week.
Mike stated that it is natural to have competing proposals on new content
from Interconnect; in previous years, Bob insisted on only one person to make
the changes. However, new content was much less likely for Editorial.
If only one person is designated as the editor week to week, would there
therefore be only one draft numbering level?
Walter suggested a date-based document revision naming convention, as in:
7.0_<date> (as in 7.0_072718)
Michael stated that he would treat Radek and Walter's proposals as formal;
no objections were raised.
Walter suggested using the approved list of BIRDs to form draft. Michael
responded that this has already been done in the initial draft he distributed
to the Editorial reflector. He summarized state of the current document:
all approved BIRDs have been added, the Version keywords have been updated as
have the examples where version is mentioned, but no other corrections or
changes have been made.
Walter suggested making a list of things to discuss next week, and selecting
an editor at that time for those changes.
Mike will start a basic tracking list for issues, based on 6.1 and 7.0 known
issues documents, plus Bob's existing list of changes needed. [AR]
Mike noted that the ratification date should be altered in the title page of
the draft. The change was made during the meeting, and the document file name
was changed to match the new format.
For the list, Radek suggested having two columns listing checks - implemented
and verified. Mike agreed.
Michael asked where documents should be posted. Radek replied that the
Editorial web page is fine. Mike noted that the 6.1 work-in-progress directory
and contents may have been driven by the IBIS Open Forum, not Editorial.
Michael proposed using Editorial for draft work, and the WIP directory for
documents submitted to and considered by the IBIS Open Forum.
Mike confirmed this was the case previously, and suggested that a vote be
needed to submit drafts.
The team agreed that the Interconnect Task Group would remain suspended.
Mike suggested perhaps using the Wednesday time slot if we wanted to speed up
Editoiral activities. Arpad added that we could use Wednesday on weeks when the
IBIS Open Forum meets. Walter added that he was OK with suspending
Interconnect.
In terms of the process for adding items to the tracking list, Walter suggested
that
small issues can be handled by the editor directly. Arpad requested his
changes sent
to the reflector be added to the tracking list. Mike will do this. [AR]
Michael agreed to send out a formal invitation for Editorial Task Group
participation
to the IBIS reflector.
Arpad suggested using year/month/day in the filename, for ease of sorting.
Walter suggested the team target end of September to complete the editorial
work.
Mike mentioned his existing timeline, as reported in recent Summit meetings.
The average previous time for Editorial work was 5 weeks (ground-related issues
took 12 weeks to resolve, which was unusual).
Mike moved to accept the edited draft as ver7_0_180727.docx.
Arpad seconded the motion. No objections were raised. The motion carried.
Michael took the AR to distribute the draft to the reflector. [AR]
The next meeting will take place August 3, and will review the issue list.
Mike moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded (?). The meeting adjourned without
objection.
