Draft Minutes of SPI Physical Working Group - Oct 13-14, 1999

Skip Jones sk_jones at qlc.com
Fri Oct 22 11:37:08 PDT 1999

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Skip Jones <sk_jones at qlc.com>

Regarding the February 2000 SPI-4 WGs.

The days I have with the hotel are what I have already booked.  The week
before and after is not possible.

I have the following booked:

2/2/00 - 50 people (SPI-4 WG)

2/3/00 - 50 people (SPI-4 WG)
2/3/00 - 25 people (STA Marketing)
2/4/00 - 25 people (STA Annual meeting)

I suggest that the best thing for everyone is if I can get 1/31 and 2/1
rooms for the cable modeling and 
SSM meeting (25-30 people).  When I booked, 1/31 and 2/1 were unavailable
for rooms over 25-30 people, so I'd need to keep the SPI-4 WG's where they

Since it is the same basic group of individuals for SPI WGs, why wouldn't we
keep SPI, CM, and SSM together?  These are important engineering talents to
all of our companies.  It does not make sense for them to travel

Thank you for your cooperation,

Skip Jones
Director, Planning and Technology
QLogic Corporation
Vice President, SCSI Trade Association

3545 Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa, CA  92626
714.668.5008 fx

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
[mailto:Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com]
		Sent:	Wednesday, October 20, 1999 3:23 AM
		To:	John Lohmeyer
		Cc:	T10 Reflector
		Subject:	Re: Draft Minutes of SPI Physical Working
Group - Oct 13-14, 1999

*	From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org) <mailto:t10 at t10.org)> , posted
*	Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
<mailto:Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com> 
			<<Late in the meeting, Gene Milligan presented a
hand-drawn foil with some
			differences in the timing budget.  Bruce Leshay
suggested that rather than
			creating another document dealing with this subject
that Gene should work with
			Bill Petty to capture Gene's differences.  Gene
agreed provided that Bill's
			document accommodate the timing budget for a
non-free running clock.  Bill
			agreed to work with Gene.>>
			Actually I did not agree. I thought it was better
while we were all together to see if a revised format for the timing budget
could be agreed to. I merely gave in to those that did not want to continue
the meeting and apparently wanted to catch early flights. It was
incidentally not late. I think it was early enough to cancel the afternoon
			There are already multiple timing budgets and it
would be helpful to also test the new budget styles against the existing
Fast 80 budget.
			<<George Penokie said that he believes we now have
proposals for most of the
			areas of SPI-4.  We now need to get serious about
the detailed numbers.  He
			proposed that we target the December meeting for
making decisions on the SPI-4
			direction.  He wants convergence on the technical
direction so he can begin
			work on putting together the SPI-4 draft document.>>
			I think as the group worked through this discussion
there was a strong indication of a target for a fleshed out definition with
general agreement by March.
			<<Gene Milligan and Mark Evans noted that the
12/2/99 and 12/3/99 meeting is in
			conflict with the 12/3/99 T13 meeting.  John said
that since T10 had already
			approved this meeting, the issue should be addressed
at the 11/4/99 T10
			That is correct. But since it will come up again I
think it should also include the fact that there has been a request to
schedule the working group meeting during the week of 13 December that is
not in conflict with either T11 or T13. It has long been expected when the
four committees (T10, T11, T12, and T13) were spun  out from T9 that they
would, in a spirit of cooperation, not schedule their meetings in conflict
with the sister (or brother if you prefer) committees.
			<<It was noted that the proposed meeting on 2/2/00
and 2/3/00 is in conflict
			with a proposed Cable Performance and SSM meeting
proposed for 2/1/00 and
			2/2/00.  John took an action item to contact Skip
Jones regarding this issue.>>
			I think this is correct as far as it goes but is not
complete. I noted that I have a conflict with those dates and requested that
the meeting either be held the week before or the week after. If the above
week has to be the week I could tolerate, although still in conflict, I
requested that the meeting be 31 January and 1 February.


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