On 23 Jun 2009 08:22:01 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >> much snipped > >Also, based on this latest group of responses (4 out of 7 rejected), I'm >wondering if IBM still considers requirements to be anything valuable, or >whether they are just another annoyance that needs to be buried in paperwork >for a decade and then rejected. It used to be that the requirements process >was a valuable tool for setting future product direction, and I hope that will >still be the case.
Back in the 1980's I submitted a group of requirements for SLAC assembler features (duplicate and overlapping USING flagging, listing the usings in header or title line, etc.). They were all rejected and unfortunately I had a conflict for the session period where the rejections were announced. It would have been interesting to watch the IBM representative read the rejection reasons given that he gave me advice on the phrasing and was VERY well aware of the SLAC mods. His comment afterward was that he did not necessarily agree with the party line. A couple or more years later HLASM was announced and the same representative told me when I asked for a handout before going to another session (conflicts again) that my requirements were used as part of the justification for the effort. This is not to criticize the representative who has been a valuable member of the SHARE community both as a user and as an IBM representative. It is to note that even rejected requirements are sometimes implemented. > >Clark > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
