Shmuel: I caught a whiff of that in conversation with the JES2/MVS group I have never seen IBM dig their heals in so deeply but maybe one other time. Its been ages so I have forgotten the details but at least in our group the IBMer was semi group friendly and he would (sometimes) tell us we were beating out heads against the wall.
I am trying to recall the timeframe (80's I guess). I had submitted a requirement to SMPE for (IIRC) forfmid on the APPLY. During the session I think(or was it during the requirements session for MVS) I just do not remember. I got a really nasty look by one of the IBMer's anyway it was voted on (with a nice high priority). AFter the meeting one of the MVS IBM reps came over to talk with me and I thought it was just going to be "HI" but it turned sour and I was surprised that IBM took requirements so personally. But the guy suggested that I should talk to IBM before handing in requirements. I was wearing a ribbon (project) manager at the time and said I am not sure we should be having this conversation. I walked over to one of my IBM friends and who the guy was. They didn't tell me much. There is some background about the requirement that really doesn't pertain to to the story other than I was putting on a lot of maintenance and I kept running into PTF's that were nested and it was taking to long to research them. Ed ________________________________ From: Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 8:33 AM Subject: Re: dynamic STEPLIB 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
