Draft Minutes T10 Plenary Meeting #30 - March 11, 1999
lohmeyer at ix.netcom.com
Mon Apr 5 09:58:00 PDT 1999
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at ix.netcom.com>
At 3/29/99 11:58 AM, Gene Milligan wrote:
>* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
>* Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
><<An individual from a new organization must attend two out of
>three consecutive plenary meetings. He/she may apply for voting membership
>the second meeting via a letter to the Chair of T10. The individual may
>vote at the second plenary meeting.>>
> As pointed out at the meeting these are the old rules. They are also
>the rules for regaining membership after termination for lack of
>attendance. But for brand spanking new members the Observer may request and
>be granted membership at the conclusion of the first meeting attended. They
>would then be included in any letter ballots that might occur between
>meetings. In theory in both the new rule and the old rule payment of NCITS
>fees is assumed.
The last sentence of the same paragraph of says, "For the purposes of
letter ballot votes, a person attending their first meeting may become a
voting member immediately following that meeting, provided their NCITS fees
have been paid." Perhaps the wording needs a little touching up, but I
think the thought is there. I've revised it as follows for the May minutes:
"A recent change in the NCITS rules permits a person attending their first
meeting to become a voting member immediately following that meeting,
provided their NCITS fees have been paid. This change permits a new member
to vote on letter ballots issued between his/her first and second meetings."
><<John Lohmeyer noted the receipt of a patent statement letter from Adaptec
> The minutes should state which project the patent statement applies
99-138 does state this clearly. However, I will clarify this point in the
><<Concerns were raised regarding incorporation of changes in FCP-2 without
>T10 votes. Bob stated that FCP-2 is not stabilized (still in working draft
>form) and that T10 votes should not be necessary.>>
> I think the minutes are accurate but I am not sure that the statements
>are. Quoting from the latest revision of the T10 policies and procedures:
>"This requirement is facilitated by the fact that the project editor is not
>authorized to make technical changes without an applicable item proposal as
>is required for any other participant. For
>technical items which are instigated verbally through a meeting motion
>rather than an item paper, such items shall be identified by reference to
>the meeting minutes document number. Since Working Draft acceptance is not
>final action, only a majority of those members voting is required for
>acceptance." Bob may be correct in that the procedures do not state when a
>working draft needs to be accepted nor does it state if a draft needs to be
>accepted prior to a subsequent revision. But if not accepted I believe it
>is not a working draft it is just a thing.
> I suspect members that have joined in the last four or five years may
>not know that T10 has approved policies and procedures. I did not find any
>direct indication on the T10 web site that it has such items.
Thank you for the additional information. It sounds like we may need to
re-visit our Policy and Procedures document to clarify these points.
Each T10 annual report calls out the Policy and Procedures document, the
electronic procedures document, and the contract editor procedures. Once
the new T10 web site is on line, I'll consider putting in links to these
documents (plus the NCITS SD-2).
><<He stated an intention to prepare a SAM-2 draft containing the agreed
> I wonder what those changes are. Are there document numbers?
I asked Ralph about this. He says the changes are at the request of the
November '98 working group meeting. Since the requested changes affect
many places in the draft, they wanted to see them in context.
><<and change communications device document references from SSC to SCSI-2
>(if the proposal to make communications commands obsolete in SSC is
> The fact that it is obsolete should be included along with the SCSI-2
>reference (sorry "it" being communications commands).
I believe the appropriate place to put this statement is in SPC-2.
><<8.15 Reduced Block Commands (RBC)>>
> There was some discussion of the Rev number to be forwarded not
>captured in the minutes. I thought it was to be Rev 7 but found Rev 8a on
>the web site.
> But this turns out just to be the hazard of having essentially the
>same topic two places on the agenda. Item 9.1 addresses rev 8
And the Rev 8a resulted from a request by the NCITS Secretariat to fix some
errors in the from matter (mostly the NCITS and T10 lists were very old).
><<John Lohmeyer ruled a roll-call vote is not needed because RBC is not a
>dpANS until it is forwarded to NCITS.>>
> Again the minutes are accurate. But this ruling is literally correct
>due to inconsistent editing of the NCITS SD-2. In pre-historic times the
>document T10 forwards as a result of their labors on a standard was called
>a draft proposed American National Standard (dpANS). For some obscure
>reason, probably CYA, the NCITS SD-2 was changed to declare that the
>forwarded document became a dpANS at the time the NCITS Secretariat assigns
>it a BSR number in generating the package for first public review. While
>clarifying this point they did not change the dpANS terminology used in all
>of the TC voting rules.
> With the above narrow, but literally correct, interpretation of the
>rules T10 is not required to conduct even the first letter ballot on the
>thingy they forward to NCITS unless it is a technical report.
> This not an objection to the outcome of the vote. Since the dissenting
>voter is noted and the documentation for the two-thirds rule is also there,
>it is clear that the application intended by the SD-2 would have given the
I spoke to Kate McMillan about this issue. She says that the rule about
requiring a roll call vote for substantive changes to a dpANS after ballot
should say 'after NCITS ballot'. She will request that the SD-2 be
clarified on its next revision. She believes that accepting the letter
ballot comments resolution and the draft incorporating those changes
requires a two-thirds vote, but not a roll call.
><<11.1 ISO Report [Milligan]
>Gene Milligan presented an oral report to the committee and provided an
>electronic report contained in 99-164r0.>>
> The minutes are accurate. For those not at the meeting who do not
>access 99-164r0 the minutes do not capture the fact that the reason for the
>withdrawal of the several ISO/IEC drafts is the excessively long delay in
>processing due to inadequate priority for some the international standards
>by T10. In some cases the priority has been exemplary but not uniformly.
Thanks for your comments, Gene. Since most of these comments do not change
the minutes (and since the mailing went out before I received your
comments), I have put a clarification in the draft minutes of the next
meeting and won't re-issue the current minutes.
John Lohmeyer Email: lohmeyer at ix.netcom.com
LSI Logic Corp. Voice: +1-719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr. Fax: +1-719-533-7036
Colo Spgs, CO 80907 BBS: +1-719-533-7950
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com
More information about the T10