This message is from the T13 list server.
I diagree Hale. What the document says is that we're going to work together. No where in there does it say that all future work is done by SATA. In fact, if you had been on the call, you would have heard the discussion that specifically revolved around commands and protocol being in T13 vs. PHY work being at SATA-IO. The intent here is to make sure that the right groups are working on the right material and that we don't have a) duplication of effort (leading to a diverging set of standards and specifications) and b) making sure that the information is RIGHT. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hale Landis Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 5:10 AM To: T13 List Server Subject: Re: [t13] Results of T13/SATA-IO Doc Plan Proposal Ad Hoc Call This message is from the T13 list server. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This message is from the T13 list server. > http://www.t13.org/docs2005/e05134r2-T13-SATA-IO-Documentation-Plan-Prop osal.pdf I don't think I could have done a better job of writing a document that described why ANSI/INCITS should disband T13. What value does T13 add when all the future work is done by "secret societies", especially the SATA secret society? How is T13 not just an insignificant extension of the SATA secret society that gives people outside the process a false sense that SATA is developed in an "open standards" environment? Many of us know that the same people, respresenting the same companies, attend both the secret society meetings and the T13 meetings and at T13 meetings they can't say anything about future standards developement because it is all under one or more NDAs from those secret societies. Why continue this misrepresentation of how the ATA standards are developed? Hale -- ++ Hale Landis ++ www.ata-atapi.com ++
