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

[John Lohmeyer]

* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at ix.netcom.com>
*
At 9/24/98 07:07 PM, Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com wrote:
>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.

Spelling error fixed.


>Regarding 8.4:
>
><< It has been agreed to accept the "tape alert" proposal for inclusion in
>SSC.>>
>
>     This should be recognized as a recommendation.

Changed to "It had been agreed to recommend acceptance of the “tape alert”
proposal ..."


>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."

Added the missing "by".


>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."

Changed "ask" to "asked" and deleted the extra "to" after SPC-2.


>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.

I believe you are correct, except I do not recollect an actual plenary vote
on the topic for SPI-3.  Since this project is still in the rather early
phase of development and the annex was actually developed for the SPI-2
project, I am not opposed to George including it into rev 1.  If anyone
finds it objectionable, it should be easy to rip out.


>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?

I believe that this was the statement made.  No one asked for a
clarification at the time.  I think I could guess what Dal was referring
to, but why not go directly to the source?


>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."

Changed.

>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.

I think that the working group simply had not taken any position on the
proposal.  I believe George had expected it to be addressed in November.
George noted that there had been no recommendation to avoid confusion about
the status of the proposal (i.e., one without a recommendation for or
against it).



>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."

Added "of".

>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."

Added "group".


>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."

Added.

Thank you for your comments!
John

--
John Lohmeyer                  Email: lohmeyer at ix.netcom.com
LSI Logic Corp.                Voice: +1-719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr.              Fax: +1-719-533-7036
Colo Spgs, CO 80907              BBS: +1-719-533-7950

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