I remember being at a requirements meeting (ISPF) where IBM was rejecting some requirements, and when I was reviewing them I mentioned that at least one of the "rejected" requirements was already in the product. The IBM rep had no problem at all changing it to "available". At that point I realized that the requirements meetings were a waste of time.
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:55:24 -0700 Ed Gould <[email protected]> wrote: :>This is not directed at you but at SHARE/IBM more or less. :>I used to work on requirements for the storage products and when we would either :>revue all the outstanding requirements or get notification from IBM that they :>thought one (or more) of any requirements were "available" or satisfied we would :>sit back and really read the original requirement and look at IBM's response and :>either said "yes" or "no" and would send the "satisfied" back to IBM and explain :>why it wasn't. :>I think someone at IBM gets promoted and one of the things that the person :>revues is the requirements list (good but...) and either they don't understand :>the requirement and they decide its close so maybe nobody will notice or they :>truly do not have a clue. They grasp at straws in other words. We yelled at our :>IBM rep once in a while when a satisfied came back and we let him know it wasn't :>and why in so many words. :>Once we put in a requirement for a DASD reporting package (lot more verbage and :>justification) and IBM came back after 2 years and said available. We looked at :>their solution and responded with no it isn't, it doesn't meet part A or section :>1 etc etc etc and sent it back. :>It (the requirement) came back as rejected. :>We rewrote the requirement and resubmitted and it died. :>Every 3 years we asked for an update and it came back still looking. :>I am firmly convinced that someone at IBM gets dinged for each requirement and a :>pat on the back for every requirement they can deflect. :> :>Ed :> :> :> :> :> :>________________________________ :>From: Cheryl Walker <[email protected]> :>To: [email protected] :>Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 3:03:18 PM :>Subject: Re: dynamic STEPLIB :> :>SHARE Requirement SSSHARE011158 (A Dynamic Steplib Facility is Needed for batch :>and TSO) was submitted in August 1985. During our recent cleanup of the MVSE :>requirements (Oct 2010), the requirements committee marked it as Available, so :>it is no longer active. :> :>The reason: IBM developed TSOLIB as the dynamic 'steplib' feature for TSO/E. :>What they did is fully compliant with all existing contents supervision :>behaviors and MVS integrity rules. The requirement pre-dates TSOLIB and does not :>stipulate that activating the dynamic 'steplib' from TSO/E READY is not an :>acceptable solution. :> :> :>A customer may want to open a new requirement for a dynamic 'steplib' feature :>that modifies the TASKLIB for an existing command processor's TCB within ISPF. :>Such a requirement will likely be rejected by IBM due to concerns about security :>issues. If that solution had been acceptable to IBM, they would have implemented :>TSOLIB that way in the first place. :> :>If anybody would like to submit a new requirement and would like help, please :>let me know. :> :>Best regards, :>Cheryl :> :>====================== :>Cheryl Watson :>Watson & Walker, Inc. :>www.watsonwalker.com :>====================== :> :> :>On Jul 22, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Lizette Koehler wrote: :> :>Andy, :> :>Not every product that runs under TSO/ISPF can use LIBDEFs or ALTLIBs, or :>TASKLIBs. :> :>I think there is a Share requirement out there (for ages I think) for IBM to :>address this issue. So far, there is still no dynamic Steplib process. :> :>I think the TSO-REXX group has had some discussions on this topic as well. :> :>Lizette :> :>---------------------------------------------------------------------- :>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, :>send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO :>Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html :> :>---------------------------------------------------------------------- :>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, :>send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO :>Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html :> :>---------------------------------------------------------------------- :>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, :>send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO :>Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
