(attaching a text version of the minutes for ease of archiving)
======================================================================
IBIS EDITORIAL TASK GROUP
http://www.ibis.org/editorial_wip/ 
Mailing list: ibis-editorial@freelists.org 
Archives at http://www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-editorial/ 
======================================================================

Attendees from June 24 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio)
ANSYS                                Curtis Clark*
Cadence Design Systems               Bradley Brim
Cisco                                David Siadat
Intel Corp.                          Michael Mirmak
Keysight Technologies                Radek Biernacki*
Mentor Graphics                      Arpad Muranyi*
Micron Technology                    Justin Butterfield, Randy Wolff*
SAE ITC                              Maureen Lemankiewicz, Logen Johnson
Signal Integrity Software            Walter Katz*, Mike LaBonte*
Teraspeed Labs                       Bob Ross*
University of Aveiro in Portugal     Wael Dghais

Mike LaBonte convened the meeting.  Curtis Clark agreed to take the minutes.
No patents were declared.   

Walter Katz moved to approve the minutes of the May 27 meeting.  Bob Ross
seconded.  No objections were raised and the minutes were approved.

Walter Katz moved to approve the minutes of the June 17 meeting.  Bob Ross
seconded.  No objections were raised and the minutes were approved.

Review of Radek Biernacki's proposed language for the "Introductory Text
for Referencing":

Note: During the discussion, the group made some modifications to Radek's
document.  The modified version has been uploaded to the editorial task group
page as draft #3.
 http://ibis.org/editorial_wip/
 
Radek noted that paragraph 2 and paragraph 4 in his document consisted
of text largely unchanged from draft 2, though slightly rearranged.

Radek had written a new first paragraph that defines the purpose of IBIS.  His
third paragraph acknowledges the External Model/Circuit constructs.

Paragraph 5 was unchanged from draft 2 and continues to need work.

Radek's document contains section headings as placeholders for text that might
need to be inserted into Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the spec.

Radek suggested the document's text should be blended into the beginning of
Section 2 of the spec.  He noted that some content of his first three paragraphs
was currently presented in an obsolete manner in the opening paragraphs of
Section 2.

Bob said he liked Radek's document and agreed it could be blended into the
opening part of Section 2.

Referring to the first sentence of the document, Bob noted that "model" means
many things in IBIS.   He also said IBIS also defines [Component]s.  Radek
agreed and said the text needs to address things beyond [Model]s, but he had
not had time to pursue it.

Bob noted we would have to deal with the "template" verbiage in Section 2
during the blending process.  Radek expressed a preference for removing the
template language altogether.  He felt it was obsolete and not really used
elsewhere.  Bob said we would just have to make sure we cleansed the
document of it entirely.

Bob wondered if paragraph 4 (the referencing discussion) belonged in Section 2.
Radek said he would prefer to have the document's text prominently placed, but
that it could be moved elsewhere.  One other possibility would be to place it
prominently in Section 5 COMPONENT DESCRIPTION.  Bob and Radek agreed that the
section(s) in which to place the various parts of the text is still an open
question.

Mike LaBonte suggested that it might help to start editing the actual 6.1 spec
to start creating 6.2.  He noted that in earlier discussions we had agreed that
we would work on modifying the document to produce 6.2, and we would then create
a BIRD from it.  The BIRD itself may not need to enumerate every change made to
create 6.2.  The group agreed, but Bob, Radek, and Arpad noted that individual
BIRDs might need to be broken out if significant technical changes were made.

Mike started by reviewing the boilerplate changes he had made to start the
process (versions, dates, placeholders, TBDs, etc.).  He had updated all
examples to use "6.2" instead of "6.1".

In the "AMI_version" section, Mike added 6.2 to the enumerated list of
versions.  This prompted Arpad to ask whether that AMI version could exceed the
version of the IBIS file that referred to it.  Some suggested it could not, but
Bob disagreed.  Bob said that the revision of the parser determined everything.
As long as the parser or EDA tool could handle the highest versions amongst the
IBIS and AMI file, there would be no restriction on mixing versions.  The parser
handles the .ibs and .ami files independently according to their own versions.

Arpad also asked a follow up question about whether two AMI models with
different versions could be used in the same simulation.  The group decided this
was a flow question we could discuss in the ATM group meetings.

Bob noted that the [Copyright] and [Date] keyword examples in Section 4 contain
the date of the approval of the spec and will need to be updated as well.

Bob noted that the URL included in Section 2 is the out of date:
www.eda.org/ibis

The review of the boilerplate changes concluded, but work on folding in the new
introductory text was not started.

AR: Mike to post the draft 3 document (already done).
AR: Mike to post the 6.2 draft 1 containing the boilerplate changes
   (already done).

Walter moved to adjourn.  Curtis seconded the motion.  The meeting adjourned.