If you want to get some group strength behind your TSM requirements then join SHARE (http://www.share.org). I just got back from the SHARE spring conference. Besides the many hours of sessions on getting the most out of TSM and the leading edge of storage technology (some sessions from IBM and some from user sites who are implementing the latest and greatest) we spent several hours discussing proposals to Tivoli for new requirements, and what current workarounds might be. We will be voting soon on the relative importance of each proposal based on the impact to the users and the effectiveness of workarounds.
The next SHARE conference will be in San Francisco in August of 2002, and will have an emphasis on AIX and unix. (http://www.userblue.org). Join now and get your list on the agenda. - Kai. --- Original Message Follows --- Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 07:38:40 -0500 From: Andrew Raibeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Exclude SYSTEM_OBJECT redux > Hey Andrew, how about we all put our request in > this forum and you consolidate them to your > management? I think my voice has a bit more of > chance to be heard via this path then making a > request to my IBM Partner account rep. Actually the opposite is true. The fact is, while TSM development may have some input into what goes into the product, ultimately it is IBM/Tivoli marketing that has the biggest influence over what will go into future releases. And since the marketing group sees the requirements that come in through official channels, they are more likely to see your requirement if you go the official route. Assuming that your IBM Partner account rep can open a requirement for you, that is the way you should request new features, changes, and enhancements. When you open a requirement through the official channels (ADSM-L is NOT an official channel), then you can be sure that the requirement is evaluated by marketing (and development), and you will receve a response. An alternative to this is to open the requirement via SHARE, where new requirements are discussed with IBM, and responses to requirements from the previous SHARE are given... at least I think that is how it works, I have not been to SHARE for several years. With that said, do not take this to mean that your suggestions on ADSM-L fall on deaf ears. If an idea on this forum comes up that we thing is a good, we will bring the idea forward internally. But that is not a replacement for the formal method of opening a requirement, where it will get more attention. Regards, Andy --- Reply to --- mrkirra2001 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/01/2002 19:17 Hey Andrew, how about we all put our request in this forum and you consolidate them to your management? I think my voice has a bit more of chance to be heard via this path then making a request to my IBM Partner account rep. So I vote we have the option to NOT backup SYSTEMOBJECTS (the *.exe's, *.dll's, etc...) on the W2K platform. Thanks /gjs
