Draft Minutes T10 Plenary meeting #36 - March 9, 2000

[Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com]

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
*

<<Unfortunately, the action of deferring consideration of the motion meant
that their memberships were terminated at the January meeting.>>

     While the Secretary takes excellent minutes and should be regularly
thanked for this contribution, the Secretary should also be asked not to
interject personal opinion, as opposed to meeting results, into the
minutes.

<<Gene Milligan reported that the T13 Style Guide, ISO/IEC Style Guide, and
IEC
Word template files had been forwarded to the T10 chair.>>

     Actually this would be more accurate as "Gene Milligan reported that
the T13 Style Guide, Part three of the ISO/IEC Directives (style guide)
ISO/IEC Word template files, and IEC Word template files had been forwarded
to the T10 chair."

<<Gene Milligan presented the ISO/IEC report; the electronic version is in
00-180.>>

     This is the same document number reported as the SBC-2 schedule.

     The short reference also fails to capture the accolades for George
Penokie in setting a world's record for promptness in resolving ISO/IEC
letter ballot comments and that several other editors, including yours
truly, have fallen two months further in arrears. Slowness is not the
process, it is us. Have a nice day.

<<Gene Milligan asked if any T10 members wish to participate in the WG 4
Delegation.>>

     Just to be clear on the process. ISO/IEC meetings are not open to all
that wish to attend. They are open to delegates and/or technical experts
designated by the national member body (in this case ANSI). I think I said
"Gene Milligan asked if any T10 members wished to be considered for the WG
4 Delegation."

<< He noted that the ATA/ATAPI video work and the revised definition of
partition
tables may have accounted for a larger than usual attendance. >>

     Well actually it was " He noted that the ATA/ATAPI video work and the
proposed definition of partition tables may have accounted for a larger
than usual attendance."

     I point out the distinction since there is no formal definition
authority for partition tables. The proposal is to generate a technical
report of the definition, currently known versions, and a mechanism for
updates. Perhaps I should have said that also.

<<Rev 4.0 of INF-8090 for ATAPI DVD has been completed and is ready for
distribution in the next mailing.>>

     Not a comment on the minutes since the report did not occur at the
meeting. But had it occurred I think I would have asked if INF-8090
includes the equivalent of "DVD+RW" or "+RW"?

<<370)   Ralph Weber will create an SPC-2 version descriptors for SPI-3
revisions 13a and 13b.>>

     Sorry. I guess I did not hear the wording of this action item
carefully enough in the meeting. Why? There are no substantive changes
between 13a and 13b. There is no need for two different versions except for
the editor to keep track of which is the latest file. The published version
would use the BSR number and year.

<<372)   Bob Snively will generate a correction proposal for FC-FS table 79
that
currently contains incorrect definitions for the reason codes for LS_RJT.>>

     I think this should be "372)   Bob Snively will generate a correction
proposal to T11 for FC-FS table 79 that currently contains incorrect
definitions for the reason codes for LS_RJT."

<<375)   John Lohmeyer will initiate an investigation concerning why T10
was
requested to prepare SPI-3 in a format that appears to conflict with the
ISO/IEC JTC1 Style Guide (e.g., removal of the document title at the foot
of
each page) and report to the next meeting.>>

     See earlier comment for the style guide nomenclature.


Thanks,

Gene


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