Draft Minutes T10 Plenary Meeting #30 - March 11, 1999

Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
Mon Mar 29 08:58:50 PST 1999

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
<<An individual from a new organization must attend two out of
three consecutive plenary meetings.  He/she may apply for voting membership
the second meeting via a letter to the Chair of T10.  The individual may
vote at the second plenary meeting.>>

     As pointed out at the meeting these are the old rules. They are also
the rules for regaining membership after termination for lack of
attendance. But for brand spanking new members the Observer may request and
be granted membership at the conclusion of the first meeting attended. They
would then be included in any letter ballots that might occur between
meetings. In theory in both the new rule and the old rule payment of NCITS
fees is assumed.

<<John Lohmeyer noted the receipt of a patent statement letter from Adaptec

     The minutes should state which project the patent statement applies

<<Concerns were raised regarding incorporation of changes in FCP-2 without
T10 votes.  Bob stated that FCP-2 is not stabilized (still in working draft
form) and that T10 votes should not be necessary.>>

     I think the minutes are accurate but I am not sure that the statements
are. Quoting from the latest revision of the T10 policies and procedures:
"This requirement is facilitated by the fact that the project editor is not
authorized to make technical changes without an applicable item proposal as
is required for any other participant. For
technical items which are instigated verbally through a meeting motion
rather than an item paper, such items shall be identified by reference to
the meeting minutes document number. Since Working Draft acceptance is not
final action, only a majority of those members voting is required for
acceptance." Bob may be correct in that the procedures do not state when a
working draft needs to be accepted nor does it state if a draft needs to be
accepted prior to a subsequent revision. But if not accepted I believe it
is not a working draft it is just a thing.

     I suspect members that have joined in the last four or five years may
not know that T10 has approved policies and procedures. I did not find any
direct indication on the T10 web site that it has such items.

<<He stated an intention to prepare a SAM-2 draft containing the agreed
multi-port changes.>>

     I wonder what those changes are. Are there document numbers?

<<and change communications device document references from SSC to SCSI-2
(if the proposal to make communications commands obsolete in SSC is

     The fact that it is obsolete should be included along with the SCSI-2
reference (sorry "it" being communications commands).

<<8.15   Reduced Block Commands (RBC)>>

     There was some discussion of the Rev number to be forwarded not
captured in the minutes. I thought it was to be Rev 7 but found Rev 8a on
the web site.

     But this turns out just to be the hazard of having essentially the
same topic two places on the agenda. Item 9.1 addresses rev 8

<<John Lohmeyer ruled a roll-call vote is not needed because RBC is not a
dpANS until it is forwarded to NCITS.>>

     Again the minutes are accurate. But this ruling is literally correct
due to inconsistent editing of the NCITS SD-2. In pre-historic times the
document T10 forwards as a result of their labors on a standard was called
a draft proposed American National Standard (dpANS). For some obscure
reason, probably CYA, the NCITS SD-2 was changed to declare that the
forwarded document became a dpANS at the time the NCITS Secretariat assigns
it a BSR number in generating the package for first public review. While
clarifying this point they did not change the dpANS terminology used in all
of the TC voting rules.

     With the above narrow, but literally correct, interpretation of the
rules T10 is not required to conduct even the first letter ballot on the
thingy they forward to NCITS unless it is a technical report.

     This not an objection to the outcome of the vote. Since the dissenting
voter is noted and the documentation for the two-thirds rule is also there,
it is clear that the application intended by the SD-2 would have given the
same results.

<<11.1   ISO Report [Milligan]

Gene Milligan presented an oral report to the committee and provided an
electronic report contained in 99-164r0.>>

     The minutes are accurate. For those not at the meeting who do not
access 99-164r0 the minutes do not capture the fact that the reason for the
withdrawal of the several ISO/IEC drafts is the excessively long delay in
processing due to inadequate priority for some the international standards
by T10. In some cases the priority has been exemplary but not uniformly.

End Grousing.


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

More information about the T10 mailing list