Draft minutes of T10 Plenary meeting # 28 - 9/17/98

[Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com]

* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
*
Regarding 8.1:

<<John noted that NCITS would meet the following week in Breaver Creek, CO.
He
planned to attend part of the meeting to present the T10 annual report.>>

     I hope you are not trying to find it by this name.

Regarding 8.4:

<< It has been agreed to accept the "tape alert" proposal for inclusion in
SSC.>>

     This should be recognized as a recommendation.

Regarding 8.12:
<<Bob Snively reported that publication has been pending since May and he
has
not been contacted ANSI.>> should be "Bob Snively reported that publication
has been pending since May and he has not been contacted by ANSI."

Regarding 8.16:
<<Ralph ask the committee to consider the possibility that SPC-2 to should
be
forwarded towards first public review at the November or March meetings. >>

     Did he ask? This should be "Ralph asked the committee to consider the
possibility that SPC-2 to should be forwarded towards first public review
at the November or March meetings."

Regarding 8.19:
<< George noted that since the annex will be informative, no formal action
is required.>>
     I imagine he did. But I assert that the rules and actions are not tied
to whether or not proposals are normative, to the extent that rules differ
the difference hinges more on whether or not the proposals/changes are
substantive. I understood that the annex was recommended and approved for
inclusion in the next revision.

Regarding 10.4.1:
<< Dal Allan stated that his no vote was based on the belief that CRC
support should be backward compatible as well as forward compatible.>>

     Was there an omission in quotation of the statement as to what the
backward compatibility would be with?

Regarding 10.4.3:
<<Gene Milligan moved that consideration of 98-220 be deferred to the
November
meeting and that the November working group be given an action item to
prepare
a recommendation for the November meeting.  Bob Snively seconded the
motion.
Gene noted that he felt insufficient time had been provided for
consideration
of the proposal by his technical experts.  The motion to defer
consideration
passed unanimously.>>

     I thought I moved and noted:"Gene Milligan moved that consideration of
98-220 be deferred to the November meeting and that the November working
group be given an action item to prepare a reconsidered recommendation
based upon any additional technical input for the November meeting.  Bob
Snively seconded the motion. Gene noted that he felt insufficient time had
been provided for consideration of the proposal by technical experts."

Regarding 10.4.7:

<< George Penokie noted that the working group had not recommended
inclusion of 98-180r3 as revised in SPI-3.>>

     I am shocked to read that he said that. I think the working group did
recommend and though it was difficult to hear in the meeting I also heard
that they recommended. Had I heard such a remark I would have asked for
clarification and/or voted against the motion.

Regarding 10,5:

<<The amended motion became "that T10 approve the levying an electronic
service
fee not to exceed $100 with the understanding that the T10 chair will
prepare
a detailed proposal ASAP.">>

     The amended motion should have become "that T10 approve the levying of
an electronic service fee not to exceed $100 with the understanding that
the T10 chair will prepare a detailed proposal ASAP."

Regarding 12.4:

<<Gene Milligan reported that a ballot resolution is being formed for
1394a.>> should be "Gene Milligan reported that a ballot resolution group
is being formed for 1394a."

Regarding 12.6   IEEE P1596.8 Status:

     I think a statement should be added such as "Gene Milligan noted that
the SCIZL news letter includes information on this project."


Gene










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