Date:     September 27, 1988                                     X3T9.2/88-118

To:       X3T9.2 Membership

From:     John Lohmeyer, X3T9.2 Chairman

Subject:  My Interpretation of the Connector Standing Rule

In Jeff Stai's 88-117 document, he suggests that I misinterpreted the Brill 
motion from the June meeting establishing a standing rule to prevent 
unannounced connector proposals.  The question Jeff raises is whether it is 
adequate to announce the intention of raising a connector proposal or must the 
entire proposal be included in the mailing.  The minutes record the motion as 
follows:

  "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."

This wording was entered during lunch on Tuesday at Milpitas and was read 
several times before the voting took place.  I particularly remember that the 
phrase "in a mailing" was substituted for one that implied the committee 
mailing.  This was done so that a proposal could be directly mailed to 
committee members if the committee mailing deadline was missed.  I don't 
recall anyone who insisted that the entire proposal be included in the 
mailing.  My recollection is that this subject simply was not discussed. In 
fact the real intent of this motion was "to prevent unannounced attempts to 
change or add..."  The Hatch proposal clearly is announced.

I have rightly or wrongly interpreted 88-111 as fulfilling the requirement of 
the Brill motion -- that is to serve notice that this subject will be 
discussed and voted upon in the October meeting with only a simple majority 
required.  In fact, I would argue that the Bold paragraph in the meeting 
announcement letter is sufficient.  (I am sure some would disagree with this 
last position.)  Regardless, David Hatch plans to mail a full proposal to all 
X3T9.2 Principals and I have provided him mailing labels to do so.  Therefore, 
at least the principals should have this proposal prior to the meeting.  Of 
course, we can always fight about the two-week rule...

I really do not want to foster an environment where everyone must become an 
expert on parliamentary procedure.  Its bad enough that we protocol-types are 
forced to become experts on connectors.  Nor do I want to spend valuable 
meeting time arguing about procedural matters.  We have seen Stewart's 
proposal three times already this year (February, April, and June).  David 
Hatch has brought it up again because he thinks the working group 
recommendation to use 90-132 ohm cables favors his connector.  

This is not a case of making a "snap judgment".  There is simply some more 
information that may affect our previous decision.  I am also expecting more 
information from AMP concerning using 50-mil centerline flat ribbon cable with 
their connector.  Hopefully we will have sufficient information to make a 
decision that will stick.