Draft Minutes of T10 Plenary Meeting #20 - 3/13/97

Jim Mcgrath jmcgrath at QNTM.COM
Fri Mar 21 17:50:43 PST 1997

* From the SCSI Reflector (scsi at symbios.com), posted by:
* jmcgrath at qntm.com (Jim Mcgrath)
     I am a bit confused on this upcoming meeting - since Ultra 3 could
     very well have protocol changes as well as speed changes, is this
     the scope of the meeting?  Or is it only to focus on the narrow
     question of Fast 80?  (It is important since different people
     would come depending on the scope of the meeting).

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Draft Minutes of T10 Plenary Meeting #20 - 3/13/97
Author:  John Lohmeyer <John.Lohmeyer at Symbios.COM> at SMTP
Date:    3/20/97 10:40 AM

* From the SCSI Reflector (scsi at symbios.com), posted by: 
* John Lohmeyer <John.Lohmeyer at Symbios.com>
At 12:26 AM 3/20/97, Gene Milligan wrote:
>> As the first person to discuss the motion, Gene Milligan moved that the 
>motion to not include >SCAM in the named T10 projects be placed on the 
>The motion to table passed 33:6.
> The gist is correct and may be sufficient however I think there should be 
>additions for clarity and to confirm the following of rules. 
> The first item is optional and not to the rules: As the first person to 
>in favor of the motion I gave an example of impediments to SCAM. The example 
>was the popular use of the SCSI ID to avoid excessive power surges in 
>which do not implement the START STOP command. 
> The second item addresses the rules but may not be retrievable from memory: 
>The motion was absolutely and definitely seconded but the minutes did not 
>capture the seconder of the motion to place the main motion on the table.
I've added the example about power surges and noted that the motion to 
table was seconded (my memory fails me as to who seconded this motion).
>>George Penokie moved that SPI be submitted to ISO.  Gene Milligan 
seconded the
>>motion.  The motion passed 36:1:0:16=53.  Commenting on the reason for 
his no
>>vote, George objected to the work he will have to do. 
> This was not SPI. It was SIP.
>>Gene Milligan moved that the IR be instructed to submit the SPI patent 
>>through the proper channels to ISO/IEC and that the IR also be instructed to 
>>supply a replacement patent statement for SPI to ISO/IEC.  John Lohmeyer 
>>seconded the motion.  The motion passed 36:0:0:17=53.
> Well maybe. But I think it would be clearer if it were the SCAM patent 
I've changed the first 'SPI' to 'SCAM'
>> Gene offered no reason for the lack of notice.  
> I was not being coy or secretive. A more even handed report would be that 
>"Gene reported that he did not know why the host, Brazil, had not yet 
>a meeting venue notice.
>>Several other T10 events are also planned: 
>>Event                Date(s)              Location/contact 
>>-------------------- -------------------- -------------------------------- 
>>SPI-2 Working Group  4/18/97              San Jose, CA / Norm Harris
> It was my understanding that this was an Ultra 3 working group. See item 
15 >of the SPI-2 working group minutes.
Ultra3 is certainly a major topic of this working group meeting, but the 
plenary did authorize this meeting as a SPI-2 working group meeting.  I am 
hoping that we will have time to address SPI-2 integration issues and not 
consume the whole meeting on Ultra3.
John Lohmeyer                 E-Mail: john.lohmeyer at symbios.com 
Symbios Logic Inc.             Voice: 719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr.              Fax: 719-533-7036
Colo Spgs, CO 80907-3444    SCSI BBS: 719-533-7950 300--28800 baud
* For SCSI Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info scsi' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com
* For SCSI Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info scsi' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com

More information about the T10 mailing list