> Sometimes a requirement does not pass Go or collect $200 and is rejected > or accepted outright. Of course, business needs change all the time, so a > Rejection or Acceptance is no guarantee that it will never see the light > of day or that it will be in release n+1. > > But remember that our response is a business response, not a technical > one. It might be a great technical idea, but if doesn't match up with our > strategic direction or investment portfolio, there's no sense in > pretending that we're going to invest in it.
That's OK by me... but "Not in Plan" doesn't tell me that. That's the only thing I'm unhappy about (at the moment). "Not in our strategic direction" I'll take (I'll grumble, but I'll take it). > If you or anyone else feels that a z/VM requirement you submitted wasn't > properly understood or considered, contact me off-list and I will look > into it. No one should feel marginalized by the process. Again, if it were just my stuff, I'd be less irritated. It's the other -- less vocal -- people on behalf of whom I wrote that gets me unhappy enough to ask. > Disclaimer: I doubt many people are satisfied by a rejection of their > requirement. We intentionally don't give much information about why and > the personalities of those who submit requirements seem to need a detailed > reason. I appreciate that and can sympathize with it. But lawyers > dictate these things. I'm used to rejection. 8-) Still, these were cryptic even by IBM standards. In any case, the VM lab Powers That Be (thanks, John, George, Dennis, and Reed) have contacted me offline, and I think we have a good solution. (Hmm, John, George, Dennis, Reed. You guys need to form a band.) -- db
