SPI-4 rev 1 'editors version' - procedure violation

Gene.Milligan at seagate.com Gene.Milligan at seagate.com
Sun Oct 15 15:05:47 PDT 2000


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

The document distributed in T10/00-378r0 is a clear violation of T10
procedures and should be quickly replaced with one that does not violate
the procedures.

When the file is opened it opens to the cover page of a purported T10
working draft. If printed the printed copy will also appear to be a working
draft. This document has not been authorized by T10 and should be
identified clearly at least on the proposed document's cover page as a
proposal.

There are unapproved substantive items in this alleged SPI-4 revision 1
draft that may have or may in the future cause material damage to
organizations that receive copies of this bogus Working Draft,  American
National  Standard,  T10 Project 1365D Revision 01.

While it is not likely that the damage or potential damage can be
completely eliminated, the Chair should take quick action to take
appropriate steps to minimize the damage. I suggest quickly:

     1) Replace T10/00-378r0 on the web and ftp sites including the
sanctioned mirror site with a notice that T10/00-378r0 violated T10
procedures and is no longer available.

     2) Send a notice of step (1) to the T10 reflector and request that
copies of T10/00-378r0 or at least the bogus included draft be destroyed.

     3) Invite the author of T10/00-378r0 to submit a new document
appropriately labeled as a proposal such that it can not be a surrogate
substitute for the to be approved 1365D Revision 1 (not just with a
disposable cover letter). (If the proposer responds with an appropriate
proposal I am not sure if this should be T10/00-378r1 or a new number.) I
assume the proposer would be amenable to this since I assume he had not
thought through that he had failed to protect against  his proposal being
mistaken for an approved draft when the cover letter was not noticed, not
printed, or separated from the proposed draft.

     4) T10 should at the next plenary decide, with the agony of how to
make up for this faux pas, how to handle Revision 1. Should the bona fide
Working Draft in the revision history indicate that Revision 1 was
counterfeit and skip to Revision 2 or some other method of dealing with the
confusion? A separate agenda item should be included for this decision.



Gene



*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org




More information about the T10 mailing list