Draft minutes of T10 plenary meeting #37 - May 18, 2000

John Lohmeyer lohmeyer at t10.org
Fri Jun 2 10:47:47 PDT 2000


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
--=====================_11286318==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gene,

I've prepared rev 1 of the T10 plenary minutes to address your issues.
These revised minutes are posted at:

ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/document.00/00-207r1.pdf
<ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/document.00/00-207r1.pdf> 

Interspersed in your comments below are the specific changes I made.

Thank you for reviewing the minutes!
John


At 09:13 AM 5/25/2000, Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com wrote:


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
*

<<He stated a final review of the comments and resolutions will be held
at
the June joint
T10/T11.3 meeting.  He asked for a further review to be held at the July
meeting.  It was requested that a second letter ballot be conducted on
the
revised FCP-2 document due to the magnitude of the changes.>>

     Perhaps accurate. But with this at least three step sequence <<a
final
review>> seems more like "another" or "the next".


I changed "final" to "another".



<<Gene Milligan reported that about 50% of the SBC pages have been
converted to
SBC-2 style.>>

     Not quite. 100% of the pages are in SBC-2 style but since the goal
is
ISO/IEC style I think I reported "Gene Milligan reported that about 50%
of
the SBC-2 pages have been converted to ISO/IEC style."


"SBC-2" changed to "ISO/IEC".



<<He hoped that the style guides could be revised before the next
meeting.>>

     Perhaps Mark should confirm this but I think Mark said "He hoped
that
the style guides could be reviewed before the next meeting." Revisions
are
not likely since we have not yet chosen a basis for a T10 style guide.


"Revised" changed to "reviewed".



<<Details of the vote were as follows:>>

     I don't know if there is an omission or if votes have been reported
all along this way. But I think the columns should be labeled to
distinguish between, Yes, No, Abstain, and Absent.


Cut-and-paste error -- I've added the heading line.



<<Jim Hafner moved that 99-245r9 be approved for inclusion in SPC-3,
SAM-2,
FCP-2, SPI-4, SBC-2, MMC-3, and a future version of RBC.  Rob Elliott
seconded
the motion.  The motion passed on a vote of 20:0:0:18=38.>>

     The motion seems defective on two counts. There is no 99-245r9
available and there is no mention of SBC in 99-245r8. Assuming r9 is
minor
changes to be done to r8, even though the minutes do not identify what
it
is other than a blank check, r8 does not provide any guidance as to what
should go into SBC-2.


I believe you later found the SBC-2 changes.  I added "(99-245r8 as
modified)" to the motion.  I am still waiting to receive the r9
document, however I have added a database entry so I won't forget to bug
Jim for it.



<<(Secretary's note: This motion was voted first in the 10.1.x group.)>>

     Is that a working group? Perhaps it would be clearer as
"(Secretary's
note: This agenda item was completed first in the 10.1.x group of agenda
items since it resulted from the earliest working group.)"


Modified as you suggest.


--
John Lohmeyer                  Email: lohmeyer at t10.org
LSI Logic Corp.                Voice: +1-719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr.              Fax: +1-719-533-7183
Colo Spgs, CO 80907

--=====================_11286318==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


Gene,
 
I've prepared rev 1 of the T10 plenary minutes to address your issues. These revised minutes are posted at:
 
ftp://ftp.t10.org/t10/document.00/00-207r1.pdf
 
Interspersed in your comments below are the specific changes I made.
 
Thank you for reviewing the minutes!
 John
 

At 09:13 AM 5/25/2000, Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com wrote:
 * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
 * Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
 *
 
<<He stated a final review of the comments and resolutions will be held at
 the June joint
 T10/T11.3 meeting.  He asked for a further review to be held at the July
 meeting.  It was requested that a second letter ballot be conducted on the
 revised FCP-2 document due to the magnitude of the changes.>>
 
     Perhaps accurate. But with this at least three step sequence <<a final
 review>> seems more like ;another; or ;the next;.
 I changed ;final; to ;another;.
 
<<Gene Milligan reported that about 50% of the SBC pages have been
 converted to
 SBC-2 style.>>
 
     Not quite. 100% of the pages are in SBC-2 style but since the goal is
 ISO/IEC style I think I reported ;Gene Milligan reported that about 50% of
 the SBC-2 pages have been converted to ISO/IEC style.;
 ;SBC-2; changed to ;ISO/IEC;.
 
<<He hoped that the style guides could be revised before the next
 meeting.>>
 
     Perhaps Mark should confirm this but I think Mark said ;He hoped that
 the style guides could be reviewed before the next meeting.; Revisions are
 not likely since we have not yet chosen a basis for a T10 style guide.
 ;Revised; changed to ;reviewed;.
 
<<Details of the vote were as follows:>>
 
     I don't know if there is an omission or if votes have been reported
 all along this way. But I think the columns should be labeled to
 distinguish between, Yes, No, Abstain, and Absent.
 Cut-and-paste error -- I've added the heading line.
 
<<Jim Hafner moved that 99-245r9 be approved for inclusion in SPC-3, SAM-2,
 FCP-2, SPI-4, SBC-2, MMC-3, and a future version of RBC.  Rob Elliott
 seconded
 the motion.  The motion passed on a vote of 20:0:0:18=38.>>
 
     The motion seems defective on two counts. There is no 99-245r9
 available and there is no mention of SBC in 99-245r8. Assuming r9 is minor
 changes to be done to r8, even though the minutes do not identify what it
 is other than a blank check, r8 does not provide any guidance as to what
 should go into SBC-2.
 I believe you later found the SBC-2 changes.  I added ;(99-245r8 as modified); to the motion.  I am still waiting to receive the r9 document, however I have added a database entry so I won't forget to bug Jim for it.
 
<<(Secretary's note: This motion was voted first in the 10.1.x group.)>>
 
     Is that a working group? Perhaps it would be clearer as ;(Secretary's
 note: This agenda item was completed first in the 10.1.x group of agenda
 items since it resulted from the earliest working group.);
 Modified as you suggest.
 
--
 John Lohmeyer                  Email: lohmeyer at t10.org
 LSI Logic Corp.                Voice: +1-719-533-7560
 4420 ArrowsWest Dr.              Fax: +1-719-533-7183
 Colo Spgs, CO 80907
 

--=====================_11286318==_.ALT--




More information about the T10 mailing list