On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
-------------------
SNIP--------------------------------------------------------
... This would cut down on duplicates a
whole lot, IMO. It would (should) make IBM more responsive to
requirements.
...
Well, the coordinators are supposed to weed out the duplicates if
they catch them. And other members, as part of SHARE's institutional
memory, should comment that "We've seen this before" in the
Requirement's "discussion" area.
Its a tough call, I know. Even IBM has (once or twice that I can
remember) got it wrong. IBM called it a dup and we said no its
different because ... and IBM said OK now we "get it" and then said
FO ( this was over 10 years ago and we are still waiting for it:( ).
Too be fair on the the IBM side they weren't looking at the
requirement as we were looking at it. Once we got both sides on the
same page IBM decided it was a different requirement. Of course there
were times that IBM was correct and it was a dup. But in all fairness
to both sides at times (IMO) its a toss-up.
Of course, that happens after you've gone through the hassle of
writing and submitting the Req. So circling back to the original
comment, it would be better to have a public discussion up front
in a public forum like IBM-Main. And if a SHARE Requirement is in
the offing, maybe ask if the appropriate SHARE requirements
coordinator would care to comment on the request.
I'm not about to blow the cover of those lurking coordinators wishing
to keep secret , but I'll come clean. I'm the requirements
coordinator
for SHARE's Networking program: mostly VTAM, TCP/IP and the
related agents and daemons that come with TCP/IP , NetView for
z/OS, etc. But I'm pretty lazy so don't expect to much out of me.
Pat, I wouldn't expect *ANYONE* from SHARE (or even IBM) to speak up
on here. Except to say "you need better justification" or something
along those lines. That would be the most I would expect, IMO. When I
was doing it for GUIDE we had one company that would regularly send
5-10 requirements in and we would look at them and shake our heads
and we would say (to ourselves) that there is zero chance any of the
proposed requirements are even going to me voted on with a
recommendation from the group. Year after year they would do the same
thing. I *GUESSED* that was part of their justification for attending
GUIDE. Since they almost never showed up at the voting session their
requirements almost always ended up in the proverbial trash.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
