Draft Minutes of T10 Plenary Meeting #34 -- November 4, 1999
Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
Thu Nov 18 12:35:40 PST 1999
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
<<John Lohmeyer took an action item to write letters to the people who commented
on MMC-2 thanking them for comments, to forward 99-333r0 to NCITS as the
resolution for the public review comments on MMC-2, and to ask NCITS to
forward MMC-2 to ANSI for publication.>>
What happened to the changes requested to MMC-2 by Harvey? Are they already
in the NCITS copy?
<<Ralph Weber reported that SPC-2 revision 12 has been available for nearly six
weeks and contains all the committee-approved changes, including those
approved at the September meeting. He stated that SPC-2 revision 14 will be
generated following this meeting and will contain all changes approved at this
In addition to the extra carriage return, what happened to Revision 13? I
asked Ralph this on the reflector when he distributed Revision 14 but I do not
think there was a reply.
<<and to accept 99-228r4 as resolving the SCC
letter ballot comments; and to accept SSC revision 22 as resolving the letter
ballot comments. The motion passed 29:0:2:11=42. George Penokie stated that
his abstention was based on a concern that his comments may not have been
fully resolved. Doug Wagner stated that his abstention was based on a lack of
expertise in this specific project.>>
In addition to the extra carriage return, it should be SSC not SCC.
Congratulations to Doug Wagner, Larry Lamers, and Roger Cummings for their
proper use of abstentions even if the latter two sound a little fishy.
99-228r4 is still not available on the web. How was it possible to approve
it? I am interested to see the resolution of my letter ballot comments.
<<10.2.2 Project Proposal for SCSI Architecture Model - 3 (SAM-3) (99-293r1)
Ralph Weber moved that T10 approve 99-293r1 as a project proposal for the SCSI
Architecture Model - 3 (SAM-3) standard. Paul Aloisi seconded the motion.
Larry Lamers moved to table the consideration of the motion. Jeff Williams
seconded the motion to table. The motion to table passed 19:4. Dal Allan
stated that his no vote was based on the indeterminate state resulting from
the motion to table.>>
I suggest that the Chair prepare himself with interpretations of the
interaction of a tabled motion and the new rule on the two week rule for Project
Proposals. The conundrum is that the topic of a tabled motion can not be
discussed until the a motion is passed to remove the original motion from the
table. But the tabled motion in this case can not be in order unless the topic
is on the agenda (I presume distributed agenda) two weeks prior to the meeting.
But since the motion is tabled, and not to be discussed, perhaps it is out of
order to have it on the agenda.
<<John Lohmeyer took an action item to forward 99-292r1 to NCITS as a
T10-approved project proposal for the SCSI Block Commands - 2 (SBC-2)
If I have not already done so, I volunteer to serve as editor and project
leader. As of these meeting minutes I have started a database of proposals
approved for inclusion in SBC-2. But I have not yet checked to see if any items
were approved prior to the project proposal. Inputs on past approvals are
welcome along with identification of the plenary at which they were approved.
<<Bob Snively that for SSC >>
In addition to the missing "moved" does this motion apply before forwarding
or is for SSC-2? Does it figure in the ballot response?
Same question for the MAMA bit item.
<<for converting RBC from the ANSI format to the ISO format.>>
As a general practice we should generate standards in the ISO/IEC format.
This is especially true since ANSI long ago adopted the ISO/IEC format. Perhaps
the additional conversion is referring to changing domestic standard callouts to
ISO/IEC standards. While this would be helpful in the original development,
often the change of which standards are used occurs after the CD or DIS ballot
depending on the path chosen.
<<The group discussed whether RBC should be an ISO standard>>
At one time RBC was targeted for 1394. The editor of 1394 has indicated
that 1394 would be progressed in ISO/IEC but I am not aware of IEEE having taken
any action to make that a fact.
<<Several issues could not be resolved without the presence of Gene Milligan so
the topic was deferred to the next meeting.>>
I would prefer to know what those issues are long before the next meeting.
<<Ralph Weber moved that T10 adopt a policy of requiring a two-thirds vote to
approve the scheduling of a plenary meeting outside the 48 contiguous United
The motion was not clear as to whether the policy was to be a simple
two-thirds rule or an NCITS two-thirds rule.
The minutes did not give background to this motion. But I can leap to a
conclusion. Having leaped I thought it would be interesting to examine the
Brisbane motion in light of this policy and to assume a simple two-thirds rule.
The Brisbane motion failed the test by one no vote that would have needed to be
cast as a yes. Alternatively the Brisbane motion failed by three abstentions
that would have needed to be cast as yea's Finally the motion failed by two no
voters not abstaining. We will never no if any of the votes would have been cast
differently in light of the rule.
Since there is no provision in the SD-2 for such a rule. Will the Chair
choose to not make the rule effective until approved by NCITS or bet on the
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
More information about the T10