SFF-8032 Rev 1.9 SFF Committee documentation may be purchased in hard copy or electronic form. SFF specifications are available at ftp://ftp.seagate.com/sff History: 2010/05/06 - Added responsibility for the editor to identify changes made to a revision being balloted for Approval. 2010/11/26 - Added requirement that all comments be made by template. SFF COMMITTEE PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION Rev 1.9 November 26, 2010 The SFF Committee is an ad hoc group formed to address storage industry needs in a prompt manner. When formed in 1990, the original goals were limited to defining de facto mechanical envelopes for disk drives so they could fit into laptop computers and other small products. In November 1992, the SFF Committee objectives were broadened to encompass any area which needs prompt industry action. The SFF Committee complements the formal standards process by filling the gap when industry needs cannot be addressed by standards because of timing, or charter, or some other consideration. Most SFF Specifications are kept narrow in scope to reduce development time. Many specifications created by the SFF Committee are submitted to bodies such as EIA (Electronic Industries Association), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) ASC (Accredited Standards Committee) and IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission). They may be accepted for separate standards, or incorporated into other standards activities. The principles of operation for the SFF Committee are not unlike those of an accredited standards committee. There are three levels of participation: - Attending the meetings is open to all, but taking part in discussions is limited to member companies, or those invited by member companies - The minutes and copies of material which are discussed during meetings are distributed only to those who sign up to receive documentation. - The individuals who represent member companies of the SFF Committee receive documentation and vote on issues that arise. Votes are not taken during meetings, only guidance on directions. All voting is by letter ballot, which ensures all members an equal opportunity to be heard. Material presented at SFF Committee meetings becomes public domain. There are no restrictions on the open mailing of material presented to the committee. In order to reduce disagreements and misunderstandings, electronic copies must be provided for all agenda items that are discussed. Copies of the material presented, or revisions if completed in time, are included in the committee mailings. Votes at an SFF Committee meeting are informal, as all recorded voting is by ballot and SFF minutes are not a means to track decisions on technical issues. The editor is the primary contact on a specification, and most of the technical activity occurs during SSWGs (Specific Subject Working Groups). The SFF Committee does not retain information distributed in minutes, or keep a history of the revisions of specifications. Members who want such a record need to archive the mailings as well as documents distributed during SSWGs. Members in attendance at a SSWG or a meeting provide guidance on what is to be contained in the next revision of a Specification. - If there is consensus then the next revision includes the agreed-upon information. - If the technical content of a section in a Specification is not agreeable to all members then the alternatives are documented in the next revision for the voters to choose between. Voting All votes of the SFF Committee are by letter ballot. Members who did not return their ballot and are in attendance at a meeting may cast their vote when the results are presented. There are multiple ballots on every Specification. The previous ballots cast by a member company are reflected in the Cumulative Total of voting which is summarized on the front page of an SFF Specification i.e. a member company which voted Yes to Approve a Specification and did not respond to the ballot to Publish will be shown as in favor. A member that previously voted Yes or No and wants to change to neutral can do so by voting to Abstain on any subsequent letter ballot. The discrimination between Cumulative and Mailing ballots is so that only those members who are technical experts in the content need vote on revisions as they are developed. The Mailing ballots attract the technical voters, so the merits of a revision are judged by the active and involved experts. The Cumulative vote reflects the general degree of support for a project. Some members may vote support based on believing there is an industry need and that the process followed within SFF will produce a viable solution. The minutes of each meeting summarize the results of the previous letter ballot and the Cumulative results of all ballots. Members are encouraged to check whether the voting status represents a valid record of how they have voted. A 'majority of one' applies to voting. One 'No' is sufficient to prevent Publication of a specification if that vote is technical in nature and raises an issue of completeness. This method ensures that only specifications which are technically complete and accurate can proceed to Publication. Revisions and Categories Every revision of an SFF Specification contains changes, of either an editorial or technical nature or both. Members are requested to review each Specification for content and correctness. There are several categories of SFF Specifications, each of which represents a stage of evolution (see SFF-8025). An SFF Specification number is assigned upon request and in anticipation of a Submittal. If no Submittal is received at the end of a reasonable period, any member can ask that the project be Canceled. If the requester happens to be the originator, the Cancellation is honored immediately. Otherwise, it is honored if no other member objects within 60 days. A specification may be Published even though only two members voted Yes and seven voted No, if the No votes were not accompanied by technical comments. In effect, the technical content is correct, but those voting No do not support the Specification. Consensus is not the requirement, technical accuracy is. To assist the editor, comments should be submitted on the SFF-8021 (preferred) or SFF-8022 template. An editor may choose to reject comments not received in one of the template formats. Following Publication, the editor shall provide a copy of the project template for inclusion in the mailing. If a ballot receives all Yes responses and valid technical comments are received from a non-member or non-voting member, the result will be another revision to correct the inaccuracies. The steps of Forwarded and Submitted require a simple majority vote. On a submitted proposal members can: - Reject the proposal by voting No - Accept the proposal as a development project by voting Yes - Have it sent immediately to a standards activity by voting Forward A vote to Forward is not a quality judgment of the proposal, it indicates the voting member felt the development activity belonged elsewhere. The votes during an approved project are technical. A No vote on a Development or Approval ballot does not indicate a political objection to an SFF Specification, it is an opinion of the technical accuracy e.g. a member could object to a project, vote No with technical comments until the specification is accurate, and vote Yes on Approval. The Yes may be followed by a No on the Publication if the member still objects to the specification. A Development project can incur several stages of major technical change until it reaches the time for an Approve ballot. An Approved specification may have editorial corrections before being balloted for Publication. If a major technical issue comes up on a ballot to Publish, the Specification drops back to Development status until a revision is ready for re-balloting to be Approved. The decision to Forward is based on a wide variety of factors, and a specification can be forwarded at any stage in the cycle. If a proposal is under development within SFF and a standards project begins in a similar area the members typically choose to submit the draft of the SFF Specification to the standards committee rather than operate a parallel effort. In the case of a Forwarded specification the contents may not yet be complete or technically valid. The latest documentation should be obtained from the committee the proposal was forwarded to. The best way to track standards activity on interface-related material is to subscribe to the document service of the standards committee. A member can combine votes on projects e.g. on a ballot to Approve, a member might vote Yes and Forward to indicate that it is technically complete and should be submitted to a standards body. Two alternatives arise: - If a specification is accepted by the committee for incorporation into a standard, SFF activities are considered complete. The latest specification remains available until it has been incorporated into a revision of the standard. - In some cases, the editor of the standard may choose to provide an Information copy for distribution by SFF. This may occur if a specification is dispersed into several standards. - If it is not accepted, the members will be balloted on whether to Publish the Specification. It is anticipated that most Specifications will be Forwarded to an accredited standards body such as EIA (Electronic Industries Association), IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission), or one of the INCITS ASC (Accredited Standards Committee) subcommittees. They may be accepted for separate standards, or incorporated into other standards activities. Revisions Each technical change in an SFF Specification is reflected by a revision number appended to the Document ID. Revision numbers only increase when there has been a technical change or a major editorial change. If there are no changes, only the status is modified when the next copy is printed with a new header that reflects the change in status. There are several stages in the evolution of a specification. - Rev 0.x typically indicates a Specification which has not been reviewed by the members or is not an accepted project. - A Specification is in the Development stage when it has been discussed by members. A Specification may be revised several times. - When a Specification is balloted to be Approved it is in the format of an SFF Specification and assumed to be almost complete. - If the changes from a previous revision are not identified by a change history, change bars, or some other means of identification, a Member's No vote stating that as the reason will be considered a technical negative. - A Specification which has passed being Approved indicates that technical issues are resolved, but there may be an editing issues to complete before being ready to vote for Publication. - Ballots to Approve or Publish may result in a specification reverting to Development status if a major technical issue arises. Users of SFF Specifications need to be aware that these are living documents which change over time. Copies of SFF Specifications are readily available in a variety of ways. - Individual copies may be downloaded from the ftp site - Copies of Specifications as they are revised are distributed to those who join the SFF Committee as an Observer ($300/year or $400/year overseas) or Member ($1,800). - Electronic copies of all Specifications plus all revisions in the current year plus mailings and minutes for the past two years are distributed every two months by CD for $360 additional to Members and Observers. SFF Committee Ph: 408-867-6630 14426 Black Walnut Ct Fx: 408-867-2115 Saratoga CA 95070 endlcom@acm.org