RE Squared: Parallel SCSI, Marketing Group Names

Skip Jones sk_jones at
Mon Nov 27 13:25:07 PST 1995


While I appreciate your view I must say that of all the areas that the "SIG"
should be concerned with, FCLC's name and public perception of FCLC should not
rate very high on the list!  I do sympathize with you on-going battle to
educate folks that FC is a SCSI interface. However, I do not believe that the
naming of "SIG" is going to help your cause, nor is it an appropriate place.  

Again, I can argue about the caliber and level of knowledge already posessed by
the "we" in your statement of, " will 'we' quickly recognize the present
scope".  If someone truly attends the meeting or has a need to know the subject
matter whom is not up to date on the subject matter, the primary focus, and the
skill-set of the attendees, then they probably would not know anything about
any of this anyway!  It's self-compensating!  At least, they and their
confusion would be pretty harmless.

Additionally, we should not use the term "parallel" as you so aptly point out,
albeit, not intentionally.  You said, " will we quickly recognize the
'PRESENT' scope".  Why would we want to strap a name onto the group that only
identifies the "present" scope? That seems pretty limited to me.  By the same
token, we should have originally named SPI "Cables and Connectors"! 

Best regards,

Skip Jones,
Marketing Manager, QLogic Corp.
From: Gene Milligan on Mon, Nov 27, 1995 12:02 PM
Subject: RE Squared: Parallel SCSI, Marketing Group Names
To: Lohmeyer John
Cc: Gerry Johnsen; SCSI Reflector

John wrote:
>As for the group name, I would like to avoid the word "parallel" even though 
>that is our current focus.  The P word could be rather limiting in the 
>future when we might need to broaden our focus to include other physical 
>transport layers.

>My suggestions:

>SCSI Industry Association
>SCSI Industry Group
>SCSI Marketing Group
>SCSI Marketing Association
>SCSI Trade Association
>SCSI Association

 Perhaps in the future I would agree with John's suggestions. But not now. They

tend to indicate that FCLC is not a SCSI industry association. This goes 
against my campaign to remind folks that FC is a SCSI interface. If the "to be 
named" group does not include parallel in its pseudonym  how will we quickly 
recognize the present scope. We in this case the great silent masses.


More information about the T10 mailing list