Voting Results on X3T10 Letter Ballot

John Lohmeyer John.Lohmeyer at
Wed Oct 30 09:11:00 PST 1996

* From the SCSI Reflector (scsi at, posted by:
* John.Lohmeyer at Symbios.COM (John Lohmeyer)
PLEASE NOTE: While this letter ballot passed, the X3 Secretariat plans
             to offer a paper mailing option in 1997.  It will be more
             expensive ($900 domestic and $1400 international) to cover
             the added expenses, but it will be available.  Therefore,
             I see no good reason to spend time resolving the comments
             on this ballot.

Voting Results on X3T10 Letter Ballot 96-039r0 on
Elimination of X3T10 paper mailings

Organization                      Name                 S Vote Add'l Info
--------------------------------- -------------------- - ---- ----------
Adaptec, Inc.                     Norman H. Harris     P Yes  
Amdahl Corp.                      Edward Fong          P Yes  
AMP, Inc.                                                DNV  
Ancot Corp.                       Gary Porter          A YesC IV Cmnts DUP 
Ancot Corp.                       Jan Dedek            P No   Cmnts 
Apple Computer                    Ron Roberts          A Yes  
Berg Electronics                  Doug Wagner          P Yes  
Ciprico Inc.                      Gerry Johnsen        P Yes  
Circuit Assembly Corp.            IAN MORRELL          P Yes  
CMD Technology                    Edward Haske         P Yes  
Congruent Software, Inc.          Peter Johansson      P YesC Cmnts 
Dallas Semiconductor              Louis Grantham       P Yes  
Digital Equipment Corp.           Charles  Monia       P Yes  IV 
Distributed Processing Tech.      Roger Cummings       P YesC Cmnts 
Eastman Kodak Co.                 Robert Reisch        P Yes  
ENDL                              I D Allan            P No   Cmnts 
Exabyte Corp.                     Edward Lappin        P Yes  
FSI Consulting Services                                  DNV  
Fujitsu Computer Products,Am      Mike Chenery         P Yes  IV 
Hewlett Packard Co.               J. Robert Sims, III  P YesC Cmnts 
Hitachi Micro Systems, Inc.       Nedi Nadershahi      P Yes  
Hitachi Cable Manchester,Inc      Zane Daggett         P No   Cmnts 
Honda Connectors                  Thomas J. Kulesza    P Yes  
IBM Corp.                         George Penokie       P Yes  
Iomega Corp.                      Geoffrey L. Barton   P Yes  
KnowledgeTek, Inc.                Dennis Moore         P Yes  
Linfinity Micro                   Dean Wallace         P Yes  
Madison Cable Corp.               Robert Bellino       P Yes  
Maxtor Corp.                      Pete McLean          P Yes  
Methode Electronics, Inc.         John Cannon          P Yes  
Molex Inc.                        Joe Dambach          P Yes  
Oak Technology, Inc.              Anthony E. Pione     P Yes  
Ophidian Designs                  Edward A. Gardner    P YesC IV Cmnts 
Panasonic Technologies, Inc                              DNV  
Philips KMG                                              DNV  
QLogic Corp.                      Skip Jones           P No   Cmnts 
Quantum Corp.                     Jim McGrath          P Yes  
Seagate Technology                James A. Whitworth   A Yes  IV 
Silicon Systems, Inc.             Dave Guss            P Yes  
Sony Electronics, Inc.            Mike Yokoyama        A Yes  
Storage Technology Corp.          Erich Oetting        P Yes  
Sun Microsystems Computer Co      Robert Snively       P YesC Cmnts 
Symbios Logic Inc.                John Lohmeyer        P Yes  
SyQuest Technology, Inc.          Patrick Mercer       P Yes  
Tandem Computers                  JOHN MOY             P No   Cmnts 
Toshiba America                   Tokuyuki Totani      P No   Cmnts 
UNISYS Corporation                Ken Hallam           P Yes  
Unitrode Corporation              Paul D. Aloisi       P Yes  
Western Digital Corporation       Jeffrey L. Williams  P Yes  
Woven Electronics                 Doug Piper           P YesC Cmnts 

Amphenol Interconnect Products Co Michael Wingard      P Yes  ORG? 
SGS-THOMSON Microelectronics      Colin Whitby-Streven O Yes  IV ORG? 
Yamaichi Electronics              Arnold Limjoco       O Yes  IV ORG? 

P       Voter indicated he/she is principal member
A       Voter indicated he/she is alternate member
O       Voter indicated he/she is observer member
?       Voter indicated he/she is not member or does not know status
YesC    Yes with comments vote
Abs     Abstain vote
DNV     Organization did not vote
IV      Individual vote (not organizational vote)
Cmnts   Comments were included with ballot
NoCmnts No comments were included with a vote that requires comments
DUP     Duplicate ballot (last ballot received from org. is counted)
PSWD    The password was not correct (vote not counted)
ORG?    Organization is not voting member of X3T10 (vote not counted)

Ballot totals:
 39 Yes
  6 No
  0 Abstain
  4 Organization(s) did not vote
 49 Total voting organizations
  1 Duplicate ballot(s) not counted
  3 Other ballot(s) not counted (e.g., non-member organization)
 12 Ballot(s) included comments

This simple majority ballot passed.


Comments attached to DUPLICATE YesC ballot from Gary Porter of 
Ancot Corporation:

This is NOT the official Ancot vote on this issue. Jan Dedek, our Principle
Member will be making that vote. The following are my personal opinions on
the subject.

1. I am in favor of this policy in principle. However, for it to
work, all documents must be readable by the recipients. That means
that they must be in a "generally available" format. Candidates for
such formats include Portable Document Format (PDF), PostScript(tm),
Device Independent (DVI) format (the output of the TeX family of 
programs). They do NOT include word processing or page layout native
formats such as Word or Framemaker, unless each CD-ROM includes a 
viewer for those formats. Obviously, standard ASCII Text format is
also acceptable for those documents which do not need graphical 
support, such as meeting agendas.


Comments attached to No ballot from Jan Dedek of 

If we get everything on CD only, I will have to find a printer to list it
out for me/us.  I cannot use it on the screen for two reasons: 

1.  I get bad pains in my upper back if I stare in the screen for long, my
eyes hurt, and therefore I hate those damn computers,...

2.  I need the text for reference to lookup things once in a while, and it
is easy just to leaf through a book where you can see everything - as you
see I am a "visual type person".

In short, if I get everything on CD, it will cost me a lot morethan the $300
we were paying to get to the info, and very probably I will not be able to
read it, because I will not get everything printed.  It will be pretty


Comments attached to YesC ballot from Peter Johansson of 
Congruent Software, Inc.:

Although I support the electronic or CD-ROM dissemination of the mailings, I
continue to believe that X3T10 must provide some method to accomodate both
those who cannot generate documents electronically and those who cannot read
documents when they are supplied in an electronic form. I know such
individuals, if they exist at all, are surely viewed as the strangest sort
anachronism by a group such as ours. Never the less, should we adopt a
that prevents participation by anyone who does not have a computer?


Comments attached to YesC ballot from Roger Cummings of 

1) I have voted Yes on this ballot because I intend myself to only use 
the electronic mailing from now on. 

2) I think that we need to be very sensitive to the budget situation @ 
the X3 Secretariat, and need to decide what "load" all of this should 
place on their staff.

3) In some ways I would rather have the Secretariat receive and 
distribute a paper mailing only, and make everything electronically 
available via the BBS and web site. This would be more efficient, in 
that I would only retrieve the items of interest.

4) I think that there are still some significant issues with regards to 
whether the international subscribers to the mailing would find the 
electronic version as useful, and I'm concerned that their voices will 
not be heard during this ballot process.


Comments attached to No ballot from I D Allan of 

The decision on whether or not to eliminate the paper option is relevant to 
all those who receive mailings, not just the members of X3T10. 

As a percentage of the population, X3T* members have to be amongst the most 
computer-literate people on the planet. The number of power strips needed in

our meetings is evidence of the high proportion of ownership. 

I doubt that any X3T* member would prefer paper over CD-ROM but there is no 
hint in this ballot that those individuals who do not have access to a CD-
ROM can continue to receive mailings. We operate in an open process, and the

result of this ballot might be to disenfranchise a number of individuals 
and/or companies from our process. 

Personally, I welcome the CD-ROM. This vote is negative because non-members 
of X3T10 who receive mailings are not being balloted. Since their money has 
helped cover the cost of copying and distribution and they have to pay 
Observer fees to X3, they should have been given an opportunity to voice 
their opinion. 


Comments attached to YesC ballot from J. Robert Sims, III of 

Unless the producing the paper copies impacts the editors and compilers
of the information, why not just increase the price of the paper mailings
to cover costs?


Comments attached to No ballot from Zane Daggett of 
Hitachi Cable Manchester, Inc.:

This year I elected to go with just the CD version of the mailings, but   
have found that the paper version is missed.  I am not dead set against this
ballot, I originally supported it anyway.  There are certain advantages to
getting the paper version and I would like to keep this option open.


Comments attached to YesC ballot from Edward A. Gardner of 
Ophidian Designs:

In principle I agree with eliminating paper mailings in favor of electronic
distribution, thus I am voting yes.  However I do have several concerns
that I wish were explicitly addressed in the question.

First, the question refers to eliminating paper mailings but says nothing
about what will replace them.  There is an implicit presumption that other
current methods of distribution will continue; this should be explicitly
stated.  In particular, the following current document distribution methods
must continue for the elimination of paper mailings to be acceptable:

1.  The custom (requirement?) of distributing paper copies of proposals and
working documents at meetings.

2.  The CD-ROM mailing.

3.  The informal electronic distribution of proposals via the reflector and
BBS, primarily to avoid the delay of waiting for the CD-ROM mailing.

Of the three of these, I am most concerned with the practice of
distributing paper copies at meetings.  At present I believe this is an
informal custom.  Unfortunately it is not that uncommon for people to bring
insufficient copies and rely on the mailing for actual distribution.  If we
are to eliminate paper mailings, this custom needs to be codified into an
explicit rule or bylaw, perhaps stating that any member can request that
consideration of any agenda item whatsoever be deferred (analogous to the
two-week rule) if adequate copies are not available at the meeting.  This
interacts with my next concern.

My other concern with eliminating paper mailings is that electronic
distribution formats are still somewhat immature.  While usually there is
no problem, difficulties with reproducing or printing documents occur
unfortunately often.  These problems are exacerbated by the tendency of all
concerned to blame any problems on the person trying to print the document
rather than on the document's author or producer.  Think of a scenario
where some member encounters problems printing a document for letter ballot
or other final action.  I fear that the attitude of most committee members
would be a total lack of sympathy and to consider any objections (due to
inability to print the electronic document) invalid.  That is totally
unacceptable.  An additional problem is that formatting and pagination of
electronic documents tend to be different on different platforms, causing
reference inconsistencies in review comments.

What I would like to see is elimination of paper mailings for proposals and
working drafts, while continuing hard copy distribution of documents for
final action.  Documents for final action could either be mailed with a
letter ballot or distributed at a meeting, this is not the same as a
mailing (e.g. X3T11 mails the document will all letter ballots, independent
of the normal mailing).  In addition I would like to see an explicitly
codified bylaw regarding a requirement on presenters to provide adequate
paper copies of all documents or presentations at meetings.

An alternative would be to identify a standard electronic document
distribution format, require that all documents be submitted in that
format, and require that all members obtain the hardware and software to
read and print that format.  I believe that that is where we will end up,
probably in just a couple years.  But I don't think that electronic
document formats have reached an adequate level of maturity and
standardization yet.


Comments attached to No ballot from Skip Jones of 
Qlogic Corp:

While I am in favor of eventually relying only on electronic
information I oppose doing so without an appropriate transition period. 
the internal logistics of CDROM-only mailings induce many new challenges
must be overcome prior to the elimination of paper mailings.  Receipt of the
paper mailngs, indexing, copying to appropriate internal individuals, and
archiving into the library is a system well in place today and will require
some time and resources to modify in preparation for non-paper mailings.

For at least several months into 1997, members should receive BOTH paper and
CDROM mailings.  This will allow all members a smooth transition and a
to already existing logistics for paper distribution while the bugs get
out during the learning curve of non-paper mailings.


Comments attached to YesC ballot from Robert Snively of 
Sun Microsystems:

1)      I believe that the availability of paper mailings may still
        be a requirement for some small number of subscribers.  It would
        be desirable to make them available either as an extra cost
        option or through a third-party supplier such as Global


Comments attached to No ballot from JOHN MOY of 



Comments attached to No ballot from Tokuyuki Totani of 
Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.:

Currently I am subscribing to receive paper format mailing. The reason is
simple. I do not have powerful PC which is capable of reading electronic
document relative to paper document. When printing document, the only
printer I have here in this small branch office is a inkjet printer running
2 page per minutes with limited amount of ink in the small cartridge and 20
paper in feeder. I do understand the convenience of the pdf based CD-ROM
document and I agree that we need to go electric in the future. But 1997 is
to early for me.

I will change my No vote to Yes if the question includes that the
announcement will be made with in enough time to prepare for the CD-ROM
mailing prior to  eliminating the option of receiving X3T10 mailings in
paper format.


Comments attached to YesC ballot from Doug Piper of 
Woven Electronics:

John, I think it is a great idea. I realize it will not be easy for everyone
to use e-mail, but
this is a volunteer organization and anything that makes it easier for you
and cheaper for
the committee should be used. I appreaciate all your efforts!

Doug Piper Woven Electronics.

******************** End of Ballot Report ********************
* For SCSI Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info scsi' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at

More information about the T10 mailing list