Present were the Chair, John Willis, the Chair Elect, Dave Barton, Ian Harris, Alec Stanculescu, John Darringer, and Tamio Hoshino who attended as an observer.

Prior to the formal start of the meeting, an informal discussion took place concerning past history with the IEEE concerning copyright decisions and availability of IEEE documents, even in the face of increased revenues for specific deals. In particular, the IEEE staff has (in the experience of several committee members) been unable to responsively make agreements that seem to be in the best interests of all concerned.

The IEEE is not happy that the DATC forum is not assigning the copyright to the IEEE. This appears to be a fairly common problem across the board.

Dave asked what we can do about the IEEE staff, and suggested taking a proposal directly to the Computer Society Board. John said this was a possibility.

John brought up the question of ITARS restricted information, and whether the IEEE is liable. There was some discussion, but the issue was not settled.

Alec suggested that we simply not assign the copyright to the IEEE, and John Willis stated that this was a possibility.

John Willis then called the meeting to order at 7:15 PM on June 3rd, 2003. John then went through the agenda.

Ian Harris started by talking about the Embedded Systems Subcommittee. This was formerly the Java / VHDL Subcommittee, but Ian suggested the name change since it seems to be more in tune with the interests of the committee. There is a web page for the subcommittee, and a special issue of "Design Automation for Embedded Systems" out of Kluwer is planned in January of next year. There was a special at the microprocessor test and verification workshop last week. Ian plans to put an annotated bibliography on the Web page (derived from one he has gathered for other purposes).

Ian mentioned the IEEE Pervasive Systems magazine, and stated that the embedded systems communities and the pervasive systems communities seem to overlap. This caused him to want to go to the IEEE Pervasive Systems magazine and ask for a special issue. In addition, Ian wants to sponsor an event or something at DATE. This could be a high visibility idea. Ian thinks DATE is appropriate this because he knows people at DATE. John Darringer suggested ICCAD, since he is on the committee there. John Willis suggested trying for both.

John Willis asked how we could help. Ian asked for new ideas. John Darringer suggested tutorials. Dave said he could do a tutorial on Rosetta from the system design subcommittee.

John Willis made the suggestion of looking at maximum performance in embedded systems. Ian was thoughtful, and said his impression was that the most important issue is power, not performance. John said there is an increasing segment to which performance is the most important thing. John offered to help get people to submit or have people on a panel.

Ian asked ideas for conferences that are not embedded systems conferences, which helps spread interest. John and Ian discussed examples of high performance embedded systems.

John asked what we could learn from Ian to re-invigorate other groups. Ian answered (honestly) that he is a non-tenured professor trying to get tenure, and this contributed. That is one reason why publicity is important; it can provide forums for publication and effort in the industry. First, second, third year faculty that is not tenured are good folks to look to for energy and motivation.

Ian then passed around his brochures, which met with universal approval. John Darringer offered to find out how to get the brochures into ICCAD bags, and Dave offered to find out how to get them in DATE bags.

Dave moved that we change the name of the Java / VHDL subcommittee to the Embedded Systems subcommittee, and Alec seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Alec then spoke about his committee, the New Technologies in Simulation committee. Alec said that while his committee had not done formal work, there is much more interest in this area, and he has people interested. John asked what DATC could do to help. Alec answered that he would consider this question, and how to verbalize his needs.

Ian asked if this could sustain a workshop, or is it a session or panel in a conference or workshop. Alec answered with a summary of the interests of his committee, and said that the areas of interest are quite broad. Ian reflected that this is enough for a workshop, but that there are so many workshops going. John Wilis suggested a track in an existing conference, and Dave suggested a co-located conference. John Willis suggested ICCAD, and John Darringer said this was a possibility. DATE is another possibility.

Ian offered to help if the issue is broadened, to validation rather than just simulation. Alec responded that validation is certainly in the area of interest of his committee.

Dave then reported on the Systems Language committee. There has been a lot of activity in the area, but none of it has been connected with the DATC. Dave suggested that we need a handbook on what kinds of support are available. John Willis suggested this sounded like a volunteer, and Dave reluctantly agreed. He will try to write, and John Willis will review.

John Willis then spoke for Mark Swolinsky, who wants to dissolve the Fault Simulation subcommittee. Dave moved to dissolve the committee, and Ian seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mark then asked (by John) to start a Pervasive Computing subcommittee. John Darringer then said that he did not really know what Pervasive Computing is, and Ian said there is overlay with Embedded Computing; however, he and Mark can talk a lot for coordination. John Willis asked Ian to work with Mark to come back with a crisp proposal for the subcommittee. Ian expressed some concern that Mark not feels that he is taking over Mark's group, but agreed with the understanding that this is not happening.

John then summarized the Parallel Simulation group. He is trying to pull together a parallel conference track of papers, and wants to target DATE. Alec and John then discussed some technical issues.

John did mention that Mark wants to get rid of Parallel Simulation entirely. Since Mark is not here to make a motion, this was not discussed further.

John Willis then reported that Steve Grout asked for a Performance Benchmarking committee. John mentioned that he had provided some test cases, but nothing went further. This has happened in an industry group more recently. John Darringer thinks this is a good idea, but it is not easy. Dave asked about the specific goals of the committee, and John said his understanding was something like a set of SPICE benchmarks. John and John then discussed potential sources of benchmarks for a while.

Dave suggested a couple of paragraphs describing the subcommittee, and we can then vote via Email. This was generally approved.

John Darringer then spoke about our participation in ICCAD. He spoke first about which conferences we sponsor and get revenue from; the sole one is ICCAD. John encouraged us to work further at sponsorship.

John then recounted an initial negative impression of the IEEE on the part of the conference committee initially. Sponsorship was reduced. Then SIGDA sent a letter asking to archive the data, which was accompanied by a request for copyright. John was surprised at the response at the Computer Society. Joe Damore has offered to do this same service (and the Computer Society said that we could use their server). At this time, SIGDA wanted money and to limit it to SIGDA members.

The result was that there is a new perception of the DATC. However, John is nervous about the formatting. John Willis thinks that we can use money in the budget to do some of the formatting. Another option is for SIGDA to do the work, and DATC's name goes on it. John is pushing for a single point of work, and to cooperate. The goal is to find a way to do it at no cost to ICCAD, and to be available to all. John is emphasizing that there is limited resources, but that we are committed to the process. John said it’s important to shield ICCAD from any IEEE copyright issues.

John spoke of a long-term process of creating a single format. John asked for a sense of the meeting that we would work to such integration. Dave made the motion that the DATC express its support for moving to a single format and procedures for conference proceedings, a CD ROM of the papers, and archival on the web site for ICCAD. John Darringer seconded. The motion passed unanimously. John will take the action item to talk with the appropriate people.

Dave then moved that the DATC thank John for his work with ICCAD. Alec seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.

John said that the conference chair wants to bring up changing the sponsorship percentage again. Thus, the attitude has changed.

John Willis then moved on to the DATC forum. This has taken longer to move than we thought, but it seems to be moving. We have some objection concerning copyright, and John said we could handle this as we deal with the ICCAD. We are looking for a strong editorial committee for filtering rather than real peer review.

Ian asked about what are effectively ads masquerading as articles. John Willis said this is a value judgment. John Darringer said that this needs to be novel and unique; something that people don't get elsewhere. John Willis said EETimes have a set of guidelines to authors that we might be able to forward.

John Willis suggested at least two people skimming things. Our tenure candidates (discussed above) are a good possibility. Ian asked for a date, and John suggested quarterly at first. This translates to September 15th, 2003 for the first version. The maximum length for the paper was 8 pages, and the papers will be reviewed. This is about 3000 words, 150 for each picture. This will be formatted as links proceeded by abstracts. Joe Damore will handle the formatting. The author can review.

John then requested new business. None being heard, the meeting adjourned.