This message is from the T13 list server.
On the experience issue, I have been intimately involved in product planning both with manufacturing and with customers as well and am just as well versed with those costs and implications as well. Once again, the R/W Long command in all of these considerations as well as all others is insignificant (that's as in zero, not measurable, nada, doesn't count, any way that you want to say it!!!) when compared to the whole of an ATA Interface. When you obsolete a command that is currently being used by those in the ATA Community, you put them at risk to the whims of the committee. Since you say that R/W Long was obsoleted in August 1997, I went back to June 1997 and re-read all of the reflector email from 6/97 through the end of 10/97. There was no mention of any discussion of R/W Long in either the reflector email, the meeting minutes, nor any of the ad hoc meetings, 3/19/02 6:08:05 PM, "McGrath, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Don, > >The ATA committee regularly exercises due diligence - all proposals are >available on the T13 web site for public viewing long before they are >approved by the committee. All meeting minutes are also posted on the web >site. This is usual practice for most standards bodies, which are required >by law to be public bodies (since otherwise standard setting in private by >companies could be considered an antitrust violation). > >On the experience issue, the problem is that I think you are looking at it >from an engineer's perspective (my experience has been in program management >and marketing as well as engineering). The cost of getting products to >market is far higher than just the direct engineering cost. And once again, >the risks of making changes when there is no benefit is too high for our >business. By making these commands obsolete the standard gives comapanies >the freedom to make those tradeoff themselves. > >Jim > > > >
