To:  The SCSI Committee                       X3T9.2/88-117 Rev 0

From: Jeff Stai, Western Digital Corp.

Subject: Connector Proposals

     I must object to the statement made in the mailing dated 
September 9, 1988 concerning connector proposals. First, I will 
quote from the minutes of the June plenary meeting:

"Mr. Brill moved and Ron Schlitzkus seconded a motion to 
establish a standing rule to prevent unannounced attempts to 
change or add to the SCSI-2 connectors. The effect of this motion 
is to require a two thirds majority to change or add a SCSI-2 
connector, unless the proposal is described in a mailing prior to 
the meeting. The motion carried: 30 in favor and 5 opposed."

     The mailing goes on to say that document X3T9.2/88-111 meets 
these requirements and so can be passed at the October plenary 
with a simple majority. I disagree: nowhere in document 
X3T9.2/88-111 is the proposal described. I see only a letter that 
states the intent to make a proposal.

     When I voted for that motion in June, I thought I was voting 
on a motion that would prevent new connectors from getting into 
the document without due study and consideration of their merits 
and problems. The chair seems to think differently. It is 
unfortunate that the wording of the motion is not recorded in the 
minutes; only the "effect" appears.

     Let me clarify one point: I do not object to the Stewart 
Stamping Corp., and I do not object to them bringing in a new 
proposal. In a sense, I am supporting their efforts. The work 
done in the working group has brought home the point that we 
cannot make these important interconnection decisions based on a 
ten minute slide show/sales presentation. We must consider the 
effects of any connector choice on the cabling and overall 
integrity of the bus.

     The Stewart proposal may very well bring some real solutions 
to our transmission line problems when daisy-chaining fine-pitch 
connectors. I hope so. But we cannot make the decision as a 
result of a single presentation. Individuals must have time to 
make their own evaluations.

     I must insist, therefore, that the chair discuss the points 
I have made in this memo prior to any vote on the connector 
proposal. I then request that the plenary decide to remand this 
proposal to the working group for further consideration and 
discussion. Please don't maintain our tradition of making 'snap 
judgements' because we are tired of hearing about connectors...



88-117r0.ws