** This is the quasi-official and semi-temporary T13 email list server. **



Hale,

I'm happy to see we agree that folks should write up proposals rather than
just emails.  My problem is that if they do not attend the meetings then the
first time a question comes up there will be no one to answer it.  After a
few such questions, the committee will (properly) drop the proposal since it
cannot properly review it without some sort of feedback from the authors.

Note that in some cases con calls can substitute for physical meeting, and
the chairs might be willing to facilitate this (especially for short
proposals).  But if an issue will cost you money, then it is not
unreasonable to be expected to spend money to attend a meeting.  In any
event, you need to establish a feedback loop - it is unreasonable to expect
any group of people to accept proposals from others without a chance to
critically examine them.

Jim

PS another difference between T13,T10 committees and IEEE is that the
committee is very responsive to people who can point to specific economic
impact of a decision - afterall, they represent companies as well.  There is
less willingness to bend over for folks with no vested interest in the
issue.  If you do not have any skin in the game, then it is assumed that the
arguments might be purely technical (i.e. not help, and indeed may even hurt
the use of ATA in actual products), and so is not as important.  But if you
have skin in the same, why not come to the meetings (afterall, all the
companies attending have made that sacrifice already).


-----Original Message-----
From: Hale Landis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 8:30 PM
To: T13 Reflector
Subject: [temp t13] scope of T13's work


  ** This is the quasi-official and semi-temporary T13 email list server. **

I believe, like Don, that accredited standards committees should look
beyond the immediate and short term goals of the current committee
membership. Documents that are useful to only a few companies are not
standards and will not last. 

During the last year T13 has become completely dominated by companies
in the desktop and notebook computer markets. No attention is being
paid to the needs of other users of the ATA (or even ATAPI)
interfaces. ATA/ATAPI-6 will be of no value to anyone outside of the
desktop and notebook markets. For example, removing the old PIO modes
from ATA/ATAPI-6 will only serve to confuse everyone and cause people
to ignore the standard. And there is no good reason to remove the old
PIO modes other than to confuse people. And what makes T13 think it
can just change the definition of a command without consulting the
people that make devices that use the command? I am refering to the
CFA Translate Sector command. If you were a member of CFA and saw
this happening what do you think your reaction would be? Did anyone
stop to think that a CF ATA device would not work in something like a
digial camera if this command did not work as expected? This is a
prime example of T13's lack of concern and interest in being the
keeper of a standard that can be widely used. T13 is becoming an
organization that should be or will be ignored.

T13 will probably serve no useful purpose in another year. In its
place we will see multiple definitions of what we call ATA/ATAPI.
Most likely each will address some narrow market for ATA or ATAPI
devices. Most likely many will be the result of "secret societies"
and may even be "secret" implementations.

Like Don, I say that a person or company should not have to be a
member and should not have to show up at meetings to make proposals
or to point out problems or to defend their needs, especially needs
that are covered in a current standard. Removing things that are
needed and used by others and then saying "you should have been at
the meeting" is total crap. 

And finally I would like to say that the only time comments I sent to
a document editor were ignored was in the case of SFF-8020. True,
maybe editors should not pay attention to such comments but I have
seen only one case where the editors of a document would not
acknowledge problems reported to them and/or bring the problems to
the their committees attention. And unfortunately it is now some six
years later and we are still trying to fix and recover from those
problems in SFF-8020.


***  Hale Landis  *** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
*** Niwot, CO USA ***   www.ata-atapi.com   ***


--
  If you have any questions or wish to unsubscribe send a 
  message to Hale Landis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] To post to
  this list server send your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  For questions concerning Thistle Grove Industries or TGI's
  list services please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
  If you have any questions or wish to unsubscribe send a 
  message to Hale Landis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] To post to
  this list server send your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  For questions concerning Thistle Grove Industries or TGI's
  list services please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to