TC-8 member Steve Greer voted No on approving the rebuttals and
e-mailed me the following comments. Comments from other TC-8 members
follow. --Joe Czapski, TC-8 chair, 31-Oct-2002


--------Steve Greer's comments---------
Comment, N. Berg #1
Backwards compatibility with existing instruments

Comment, P. Fleming #1
[incompatible interface functions]

In IEEE 488 1987 and all previous versions, the behavior of device
when it receives an unrecognized ACG or UCG is undefined. The device
may do anything including refusing to handshake. A device designer
could see such behavior as useful in preventing a controller from
sending illegal commands. Such behavior does not introduce new
interface functions.

The rebuttal does not address the concern raised.


Comment, R. Steele #3
Consideration for other High Speed Alternatives

Comment, P. Fleming #6
[consider IEC/DKE alternative proposal]

Comment, P. Fleming #7
[new standard number is appropriate]

The rebuttal gives a long description of how slowly the working group
performed its duties. Surely in last five years consideration could
have been given to an alternative proposal. Instead, the rebuttal says
the working group simply chose to ignore a potentially superior
solution for many years.


Comment, P. Fleming #7
[new standard number is appropriate]

Publishing HS488 under its own IEEE number would be quite easy. The
IEEE would enjoy additional revenue from another publication. A
separate publication would also better answer many of the other
objections regarding compatibility, harmony, and user benefit.
-----------------------------------------

I also received comments from some Yes voters, so I'll list them here as
well:

From Bill Maciejewski:
I believe that there is no further benefit in prolonging the release of the
rebuttals. If the authors of the negative comments aren't convinced that
their concerns have been adequately addressed, they will vote NO on the
488.1 re-ballot.

From Doug Lyons:
The rebuttals to the negative comments, rev. 16 Oct 2000, by the BRC seem
reasonable.

From Steve Lomas:
I believe that further debate would not benefit any of the parties concerned
and that the standard balloting group will have enough information to make
an informed decision. I still maintain my original views on the issues
raised, but I also believe in democracy and can see no justification for any
further delay to the balloting process.

--------end of ballot comments---------

Steve Lomas also sent me this info, which I think appropriate to pass on to
you:
------------------
Has the publication of a Trial-Use Standard ever been considered for P488.1?
In the Standards Companion I found the following, which seems to describe
our situation with almost uncanny accuracy:

"Sometimes a standard doesn't follow this development path quite as smoothly
as it should. Perhaps your working group isn't able to come to immediate
agreement, or perhaps the technology being standardized is evolving rapidly.
When you feel you need to receive input from a broad base in your technical
community or if you're having difficulty resolving certain negative ballots,
you might want to consider the option of distributing your standard as a
trial-use standard."

Could this approach offer an acceptable solution to all concerned? What do
you think?
------------------

I think that at this point we are obliged to send out the ballot
recirculation as planned. However, Steve brings up an interesting option.
If the recirculation vote fails, we have the Trial-Use option.