Draft minutes of T10 plenary meeting #37 - May 18, 2000

Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com Gene_Milligan at notes.seagate.com
Thu May 25 07:13:47 PDT 2000

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

<<He stated a final review of the comments and resolutions will be held at
the June joint
T10/T11.3 meeting.  He asked for a further review to be held at the July
meeting.  It was requested that a second letter ballot be conducted on the
revised FCP-2 document due to the magnitude of the changes.>>

     Perhaps accurate. But with this at least three step sequence <<a final
review>> seems more like "another" or "the next".

<<Gene Milligan reported that about 50% of the SBC pages have been
converted to
SBC-2 style.>>

     Not quite. 100% of the pages are in SBC-2 style but since the goal is
ISO/IEC style I think I reported "Gene Milligan reported that about 50% of
the SBC-2 pages have been converted to ISO/IEC style."

<<He hoped that the style guides could be revised before the next

     Perhaps Mark should confirm this but I think Mark said "He hoped that
the style guides could be reviewed before the next meeting." Revisions are
not likely since we have not yet chosen a basis for a T10 style guide.

<<Details of the vote were as follows:>>

     I don't know if there is an omission or if votes have been reported
all along this way. But I think the columns should be labeled to
distinguish between, Yes, No, Abstain, and Absent.

<<Jim Hafner moved that 99-245r9 be approved for inclusion in SPC-3, SAM-2,
FCP-2, SPI-4, SBC-2, MMC-3, and a future version of RBC.  Rob Elliott
the motion.  The motion passed on a vote of 20:0:0:18=38.>>

     The motion seems defective on two counts. There is no 99-245r9
available and there is no mention of SBC in 99-245r8. Assuming r9 is minor
changes to be done to r8, even though the minutes do not identify what it
is other than a blank check, r8 does not provide any guidance as to what
should go into SBC-2.

<<(Secretary's note: This motion was voted first in the 10.1.x group.)>>

     Is that a working group? Perhaps it would be clearer as "(Secretary's
note: This agenda item was completed first in the 10.1.x group of agenda
items since it resulted from the earliest working group.)"


* 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