Eric, thank you for expressing what many IBMers dare not.
Yes, I should have been clear. This attitude is from the cost-cutters, not from
rank-and-file IBMers.
This approach appears to have ZERO support from in-the-trenches IBMers,
customers, or ISVs. The only proponents are documentation
Sorry, I'm a bit late to this, this morning.
But "...neither as available, functional ore reliable as those
they replace" has been an ongoing complaint going back a few
decades. And definitely deserves a *+1 *from me.
But I'm afraid that you are talking to this chap: Brick Wall,
please
On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:40:34 +, Allan Staller wrote:
>Classification: Confidential
>
>This entire thread comes down to "the "new tools" are neither as available,
>functional ore reliable as those they replace".
>
I was hoping you'd say that.
+1 on RCFs and +1 on the above.
Art Gutowski
Years ago when I installed ServerPac's regularly, the software came with
multiple install manuals. The information was always there, but often
difficult to find and I wasn't about to read each manual completely. I
used to joke about opening an IBMLink record with an install question,
knowing
serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?
Yes! I've heard a lot of complaints about IBM documentation being confusing,
and I know it's impossible to make EVERYTHING clear. But one thing I've said
over and over again for decades: I may have to search the manuals for a long
time
Yes! I've heard a lot of complaints about IBM documentation being confusing,
and I know it's impossible to make EVERYTHING clear. But one thing I've said
over and over again for decades: I may have to search the manuals for a long
time to find what I'm looking for, but I can be pretty
+1
-- Original Message --
From: Robert Keahey
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 09:38:33 -0500
+1
--
For IBM-MAIN
Discussion List on behalf
of Charles Mills
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 6:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?
For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to
remove the RCF process as we have known
IBM's Management's bonuses are not based on good doc being available.
Sales people do not have to show how good the doc is to make
sales, so they don't care either.
Decades ago someone said to me, as I complained about an index
issue (something I thought should have been in the index) --
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 6:05 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?
>
> For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to
> remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty
+1
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 9:19 AM Gord Tomlin
wrote:
> +1
>
> --
>
> Regards, Gord Tomlin
> Action Software International
> (a division of Mazda Computer Corporation)
> Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507
> Support: https://actionsoftware.com/support/
>
>
What are they smoking?
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 6:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?
For those who have not been
Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 9:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type
process?
I find it kind of amazing. Here is a bunch of dedicated people, many of us with
40 or more
+1
I fully agree with opinions expressed here.
Dana Mitchell
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
+1
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
+1
--
Regards, Gord Tomlin
Action Software International
(a division of Mazda Computer Corporation)
Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507
Support: https://actionsoftware.com/support/
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
I find it kind of amazing. Here is a bunch of dedicated people, many of us with
40 or more years of experience, willing to help IBM make their documentation
better AT NO CHARGE TO IBM. And what is IBM's response? Take a hike.
You know, there are many things that have made this platform
+1
Rex Pommier
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Charles Mills
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 5:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type
process?
For those who have not been
Classification: Confidential
This entire thread comes down to "the "new tools" are neither as available,
functional ore reliable as those they replace".
::DISCLAIMER::
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended
for the named
Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
René Jansen
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 5:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?
+1
René Jansen.
> On 23 May 2023, at 09:44, Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw
> <032ff
On Behalf Of
> Charles Mills
> Sent: 22 May 2023 23:06
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?
>
> For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to
> remove the RCF process as we h
+1
Voted for Peter Farley's RFE as well.
Lennie
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Charles Mills
Sent: 22 May 2023 23:06
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?
For those who have not been
+1
On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 05:31, Doug Shupe wrote:
> +1 and more
>
> Stay Safe
>
> > On May 22, 2023, at 19:19, Ramsey Hallman
> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I agree whole-heartedly with Mike and Charles.
> >
> > Ramsey Hallman
> > MVS/Quickref Support Group
> > Chicago-Soft, LTD.
> >
> >> On
+1 and more
Stay Safe
> On May 22, 2023, at 19:19, Ramsey Hallman wrote:
>
> +1
>
> I agree whole-heartedly with Mike and Charles.
>
> Ramsey Hallman
> MVS/Quickref Support Group
> Chicago-Soft, LTD.
>
>> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 5:34 PM Mike Shaw wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I have been
+1000
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 7:59 PM Steve Thompson wrote:
> +1 to what Mike and Charles have said.
>
> And I too have done much of what Mike said below over the past 40
> years.
>
> Things wrong in RTM relative to SRBs and FRRs. Fairly recently I
> found a bug in ESPIE. I've reported doc that
+1 to what Mike and Charles have said.
And I too have done much of what Mike said below over the past 40
years.
Things wrong in RTM relative to SRBs and FRRs. Fairly recently I
found a bug in ESPIE. I've reported doc that is wrong about
Macros, or the Macro is wrong relative to the doc. Or
+1
> On 23 May 2023, at 6:05 am, Charles Mills wrote:
>
> For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to
> remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers
> and ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you
>
+1
I agree whole-heartedly with Mike and Charles.
Ramsey Hallman
MVS/Quickref Support Group
Chicago-Soft, LTD.
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 5:34 PM Mike Shaw wrote:
> +1
>
> I have been working with IBM z/OS documentation for over 40 years and have
> submitted many reader comment forms in that
+1
I have been working with IBM z/OS documentation for over 40 years and have
submitted many reader comment forms in that time. In that time I have found
and reported typographical errors, inconsistencies, obsolete information,
and even flat-out WRONG statements.
Without real-world feedback from
For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to
remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers and
ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you answer No,
you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also
30 matches
Mail list logo
