Parent


Attendees

  • David Rusling (Linaro)
  • Kiko (Linaro)
  • Andrea Gallo (ST-Ericsson)
  • George Grey (Linaro)
  • Yves Vandervennet (Freescale)
  • Philippe Robin (ARM)
  • Vijay Pasam (TI)
  • Paul McKenney (IBM)

Guests

  • Kurt Taylor (Lianro)

Absent

  • Roger Teague (ARM) (holiday)
  • Sree Kumar (Samsung)

Information

Guest Participants

Minutes

  • Actions
    • Move meeting back to 2.30pm UTC [DONE]
    • A brief discussion, move the call back an hour to 1.30 UTC / 2.30 GMT
  • Linaro connect
    • Have you all signed up and organised your travel
  • Multimedia public plan review (see DRAFT Linaro MMWG 11.11 Plan Review.pdf)

    • Feedback
      • Focus areas, slide 3
        • Memory management is the highest focus
      • Is the owner the only contributor to the task?
      • Andrea: open max versus memory management priority?
      • Andrea: Benjamin and assignment to open max
      • In previous meetings, open max lower priority than other items
        • TI open max should be at the bottom of the list
        • ST Ericsson, lower priority than memory management (but should complete the survey, implemention at the bottom of the list)
        • Freescale:
        • ARM: UMM is higher than open max, survey useful
        • Should we continue to invest in open max?
          • Andrea: perfectly working open max in Android, each including own hardware acceleration there
          • Kiko: the work is to make open max easier to integrate hardware
          • Kurt: the premise is that open max is the API for both platforms, that's the crux of the broken pieces of open max IL. Survey is to figure out a common set of extensions.
          • Kiko: there are significant challenges to integrating hardware into open max
        • RECOMMENDATION: memory management and the open max survey are equally high priority. Once we have the survey, discuss with Google Android, come back to the TSC with recommendations for concrete work.
        • NOTE: The TSC does not want to invest in
    • Agree a date for this, I suggest the coming Monday
      • Monday, 25th July 2011 [ACTION] David Rusling - Organise with Kurt
  • Discuss format of standing TSC meetings
    • Overview from Kiko
      • Use the TSC face to face meetings to review the roadmap
        • The roadmap runs over several years (3 - 6 months, over 3 years)
        • Specific milestones (high level granularity)
        • TSC would decide what the roadmap looks like, with the help and support of the technical leads
      • Monthly
        • Milestones by working group
        • Experts would be needed for that level of detail
    • Monthly engineering review
      • Vijay: pretty good, regular updates
      • Vijay: is 20 minutes sufficient?
      • Paul: takes some effort up front. That 20 minutes is about the high level of stuff
      • Kiko: the important part is the preparation up front. Need to timebox it so that conversations do not overflow
      • Vijay: should let it run and fine tune.
      • Philippe: agree
    • Six monthly Roadmaps review
      • Andrea: sounds good.
  • Meetings at Linaro Connect
    • Currently arranged meeting with each team
    • Need to add a meeting for requirements / roadmap tools etc
      • Yves: face to face good, other discussion have to do
      • Vijay: there on Wednesday morning

Next Meeting


Monthly Engineering Review Meetings

Goals

The goal of this meeting is to review the working group progress in the last month and assign priorities for the next month.

Inputs

Inputs (available at least 3 working days before the meeting) are:

  • List of completed engineering tasks / blueprints
  • List of deferred engineering tasks / blueprints (together with any salient information)
  • List of outstanding engineering tasks / blueprints
    • Viewable by team, by roadmap item (essentially high level requirements)

Schedule

The assumption is that tasks are being generated and refined continuously as high level requirements are brought to the TSC and discussed. It is essential that we make this review efficient as there are a lot of teams and work. An hour per team is just not practical. In addition, there needs to be scope for bringing in the WG technical leads and member's subject matter experts to help them during the meeting, so fixed time slots makes sense. The meeting will be held on the first Wednesday of every calendar month. The outline agenda is:

  • Overview (Kiko, 10 minutes)
  • Toolchain WG (Michael Hope, 20 minutes)
  • Kernel WG (Deepak Saxena, 20 minutes)
  • Graphics WG (Jesse Barker, 20 minutes)
  • Multimedia WG (Kurt Taylor, 20 minutes)
  • Power Management WG (Amit Kucheria, 20 minutes)
  • Wrap up (Kiko, 10 minutes)

NOTES:

  • 'Difficult' topics should be deferred for discussion (at the next scheduled TSC meeting or a specially adjourned meeting)
  • Should we make this 3 hours and allow 30 minutes per team

Six Monthly Roadmap Review Meetings

Goals

This review is of the high level roadmap. This includes the quarterly deliverables (or high level requirements) of the next six months.

Inputs

Available at least 5 working days before the meeting:

  • The current roadmap (based on input from members, teams, prioritised against engineering resources and teams)
    • Sortable by team, by topic (eg A15)
  • List of new items created / requested by members

Schedule

The aim of this meeting is to discuss problems with the roadmap. It will be held on the last Wednesday of the month, every three months.

  • Collate list of problems / discussions with the roadmap
  • Discuss issues (where the discussion goes long, schedule for the next TSC meetings)
  • Summary
  • AOB

NOTES:

  • The other TSC meetings would be used for:
    • Technical topic discussions
    • Requirements gathering

TSC/2011-07-13 (last modified 2011-07-20 15:26:05)