In <[email protected]>, on
07/26/2011
at 11:55 AM, Ed Gould <[email protected]> said:
>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.
OnQoheleth
You should have been around for the programmable SYSOUT run-around.
Share finally had to submit essentially the same requirement
concurrently from JES2, JES3 and TSO, each referring to the
requirements from the other projects, in order to finally get IBM to
stop passing the buck.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
