SPI-4 rev 1 'editors version' - procedure violation
lohmeyer at t10.org
Mon Oct 16 09:43:37 PDT 2000
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* John Lohmeyer <lohmeyer at t10.org>
Sorry about not responding to this issue sooner (my email was down over the
I have replaced the 00-378r0.pdf file with one that opens to page 1 instead
of page 2. I've ask George to send me a replacement pdf file that replaces
the header with one that makes it clearer that the file is a proposal (as
opposed to a working draft). He promised to send it to me later today. By
the way, he does not know why the first pdf opened to page 2 instead of page 1.
I think it best to replace rev 0 of 00-378 (rather than issuing a rev 1)
because this will avoid archiving the misleading document.
I will add an agenda item to the T10 new business regarding this SNAFU.
At 05:05 PM 10/15/2000, Gene.Milligan at seagate.com wrote:
>* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
>* Gene.Milligan at seagate.com
>The document distributed in T10/00-378r0 is a clear violation of T10
>procedures and should be quickly replaced with one that does not violate
>When the file is opened it opens to the cover page of a purported T10
>working draft. If printed the printed copy will also appear to be a working
>draft. This document has not been authorized by T10 and should be
>identified clearly at least on the proposed document's cover page as a
>There are unapproved substantive items in this alleged SPI-4 revision 1
>draft that may have or may in the future cause material damage to
>organizations that receive copies of this bogus Working Draft, American
>National Standard, T10 Project 1365D Revision 01.
>While it is not likely that the damage or potential damage can be
>completely eliminated, the Chair should take quick action to take
>appropriate steps to minimize the damage. I suggest quickly:
> 1) Replace T10/00-378r0 on the web and ftp sites including the
>sanctioned mirror site with a notice that T10/00-378r0 violated T10
>procedures and is no longer available.
> 2) Send a notice of step (1) to the T10 reflector and request that
>copies of T10/00-378r0 or at least the bogus included draft be destroyed.
> 3) Invite the author of T10/00-378r0 to submit a new document
>appropriately labeled as a proposal such that it can not be a surrogate
>substitute for the to be approved 1365D Revision 1 (not just with a
>disposable cover letter). (If the proposer responds with an appropriate
>proposal I am not sure if this should be T10/00-378r1 or a new number.) I
>assume the proposer would be amenable to this since I assume he had not
>thought through that he had failed to protect against his proposal being
>mistaken for an approved draft when the cover letter was not noticed, not
>printed, or separated from the proposed draft.
> 4) T10 should at the next plenary decide, with the agony of how to
>make up for this faux pas, how to handle Revision 1. Should the bona fide
>Working Draft in the revision history indicate that Revision 1 was
>counterfeit and skip to Revision 2 or some other method of dealing with the
>confusion? A separate agenda item should be included for this decision.
>* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
>* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
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
More information about the T10