.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Job class enforcement was Re: IEFC603I PROCLIB
>> DEVICE I/O ERROR READING F...
>>
>>
>> >> One reason - the job's submitter may be trying to run his work at
>> > lower cost
>> > than the correct job class would cost, as
On 29 Mar 2007 10:41:40 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shmuel
Metz , Seymour J.) wrote:
>>If people are doing that, then your charge back policies should be
>>reviewed. NOT, what the user is doing to get their job done.
>
>The users' jobs include following company policies.
That is correct.But as
In a recent note, "(IBM Mainframe Discussion List)" said:
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:41:14 EDT
>
> charge-back policy is in effect. I heard long ago about a user who was
> printing free
> copies of a large document by submitting the document as comment statements
> with a deliberate JCL erro
>I can hijack a C initiator to get my work done and to with the other
>programmers!", shouldn't I, as the system administrator, make sure
that the programmer doesn't get away with it?
We are talking a matter of degree.
If one programmer/user is doing it, fine, remediation includes everything up
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:15 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Job class enforcement was Re: IEFC603I PROCLIB
> DEVIC
In a message dated 3/28/2007 3:14:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>If you have draconian policies, users will perform unusual acts to get
around it.
Too true. And the policies don't even have to be draconian. This is normal
human behavior. As many lawyers know,
>> One reason - the job's submitter may be trying to run his work at
> lower cost
> than the correct job class would cost, assuming a job-class-based
> charge-back policy is in effect.
If people are doing that, then your charge back policies should be reviewed.
NOT, what the user is doing to ge
On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:41 PM, (IBM Mainframe Discussion List) wrote:
In a message dated 3/28/2007 2:29:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why verify and fail when the system can just make it what it
should be this
week? How is productivity helped.
One reason - the job
In a message dated 3/28/2007 2:29:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Why verify and fail when the system can just make it what it should be this
week? How is productivity helped.
One reason - the job's submitter may be trying to run his work at lower cost
than the
9 matches
Mail list logo
