Draft Minutes of T10 Plenary Meeting #34 -- November 4, 1999

[John Lohmeyer]

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
*
Gene,

Thank you for your comments on the T10 minutes.  I will issue a rev 1 of
99-310 with the changes documented below.

John


At 11/18/1999 01:35 PM , Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com wrote:
><<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?

Ron Roberts received an email from Harvey saying he (Harvey) had
incorporated 4 editorial changes into the Word file and had sent it to
NCITS.  I am trying to obtain a copy of this file (which I will call MMC-2
Rev 11b).  Ron says that should I be unable to obtain the file from NCITS,
he will re-edit the changes (from Harvey's email) into rev 11a and send me
the file.

I've added the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph in item
8.6:

"MMC-2 Rev 11b will include the editorial changes received from ANSI and
will not contain any substantive changes."

><<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
>
>meeting.>>
>
>     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.

The extra carriage return is an anomaly of the email system.  Same thing
happened to rev 13 that happens to the 13th floor of many buildings -- it
was skipped.

><<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.

I corrected the SCC to be SSC.


>     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.

Good point.  I've sent Dave Peterson an email requesting the r4 document.
I think what happened here was Ralph assumed that 99-228r4 would be
necessary to document the two changes approved under agenda items 10.2.8
and 10.2.9 (earlier in the meeting, but later in the agenda).  I would
assume that you can safely review 99-228r3 regarding the resolution of your
comments.  If it turns out that r4 is not necessary, I'll issue a further
correction to the minutes.


><<10.2.2 Project Proposal for SCSI Architecture Model - 3 (SAM-3) (99-293r1)
>[Weber]
>
>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.

Weird.  Normally, tabled motions are not put on the agenda, but due to this
technicality, I will put this one on the agenda if anyone tells me they
plan to make a motion to remove it from the table.

If I understand Monica's email correctly, we always have the 'out' of
processing this PP under the old rules -- that is asking NCITS to approve
it with a 30-day letter ballot.

><<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)
>standard.>>
>
>     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.

I believe you have already volunteered and I gratefully accept your offer
contingent on NCITS actually approving the project.


><<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.

Added 'moved'.  Agenda items 10.2.8 and 10.2.9 were covered prior to
forwarding SSC under agenda item 9.1.  The motion in 9.1 specifically
includes these two items.


><<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.

I believe that we develop the ANSI standards in the ISO/IEC format as much
is possible.  But there seems to always be additional changes including
changing references to international standards.  I need to talk to you more
about these issues; in particular, would it simplify the ISO/IEC editing
task on RBC to wait until it is published by ANSI and then fast-track it?


><<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
>States.>>
>
>     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
>come?

Since the SD-2 does not specifically cover such a rule, we fall back to
Parliamentary Procedure.  I believe Ralph's motion should be interpreted as
establishing a standing rule.  If I understand standing rules correctly,
they can be established and dissolved with simple majority motions.  They
do not go into effect until the meeting after they are established and they
do not go out of effect until the meeting after they are dissolved.

Nonetheless, I would prefer to document Ralph's rule in an appropriate T10
procedures document.


--
John Lohmeyer                  Email: lohmeyer at t10.org
LSI Logic Corp.                Voice: +1-719-533-7560
4420 ArrowsWest Dr.              Fax: +1-719-533-7183
Colo Spgs, CO 80907

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