ADSM-L

Re: Requirements submissions....

1996-06-05 11:59:19
Subject: Re: Requirements submissions....
From: "Pittson, Timothy ,Corp,US" <tpittson AT HIMAIL.HCC DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:59:19 -0400
This note was one of the first ones posted to the ADSM-R listserver..
does this still hold true or not ??

We use a Lotus notes database for our requirements which is not
accessible outside of IBM...it is also classified as IBM Confidential.
I don't think you would want to go through the requirements and
prioritize them...as of today, there are 1146 ADSM requirements in
our database (only a handful of them are duplicates).

I can add requirements and I am part of the team that evaluates
them...so I will be watching this list closely and probably soliciting
input.  I also handle GUIDE ADSM requirements so I thank you for
welcoming their input as well.

I cannot make this a formal committment but
I will plan on entering into our requirements database
any requirements that this list agrees to deem important.  This
will not replace the formal SHARE/GUIDE voting which still carries
extra weight...but it will guarantee that certain requirements get
right into our database and get evaluated sooner (and maybe even
occasionally put into the product sooner  ;-)  ).  I do not commit
to add every single requirement mentioned here into the database...
but if several (like 3-5+) discuss a request and agree to its value,
I will certainly put it in.

Thanks for your input...Greg Tevis


Tim Pittson
tpittson AT himail.hcc DOT com

>----------
>From:  Andrew M. Raibeck[SMTP:araibeck AT VNET.IBM DOT COM]
>Sent:  Wednesday, June 05, 1996 11:20 AM
>To:    Multiple recipients of list ADSM-L
>Subject:       Re: Requirements submissions....
>
>Jerry Lawson asks:
>
>>I had a discussion a couple of days ago with an IBMer who told me that this
>>list server was not being monitored by IBM, and that they were not accepting
>>requirements submitted through here.  Needless to say, I was not thrilled by
>>this disclosure - I thought that IBM was at least paying attention to what
>>went on here.  Are there any IBMers out there on this server?  Is what
>>I heard
>>true?
>
>Jerry,
>
>First, let me caveat all of this by saying that this is all "to the
>best of my
>knowledge," and perhaps someone else from IBM knows the true story.
>
>To the best of my knowledge, this list server is not the place for
>requirements
>submissions. You should continue to use your formal channels (local IBM
>support
>or PMRs, as appropriate). I don't know whether it still exists, but at
>one time
>there was an ADSM-R list server, also on VM.MARIST.EDU, that you could
>sub-
>scribe to. This was for the submission and discussion of requirements
>that were
>to be submitted via SHARE.
>
>I don't know who told you IBM does not monitor the server, but I post
>here on a
>relatively frequent basis. Don't I count?   :-)
>
>I also see posts here from Cyndie Behrens, David Bohm, Barry Fruchtman,
>Dave
>Cannon, as well as others. They too, are from IBM. So I don't know why
>you
>think we don't monitor the server.
>
>As far as taking requirements goes, I don't believe that we do anything
>on a
>formal basis here. This is primarily an ADSM user group. In fact, IBM
>does not
>own or maintain this server (again, to the best of my knowledge). In
>other
>words, I don't think someone will get back to you with a formal
>requirement
>number on things. Again, there are other channels for that as I said
>above.
>
>However, we do listen on an informal basis. That is, we do pay
>attention to
>what is said, and when we see something that looks like it needs to be
>addressed, it does indeed get discussed internally. Case in point: the
>recent
>complaints about the documentation generated quite a bit of discussion
>internally. So hopefully the next go-round of manuals will reflect some
>improvement. And if a truly severe problem raises its head that affects
>most
>users, we don't necessarily wait for a formal problem to be opened
>before we
>take a look at it. Alternatively, if someone reports a problem that
>looks
>severe enough (i.e. "I just installed the latest PTF and now I get a
>core
>dump" - this is just a hypothetical example), I'll reply to the
>submittor and
>tell them they should open a formal problem with ADSM support. I
>usually also
>provide my phone number in case they have a problem getting through,
>just so
>the ball doesn't get dropped.
>
>Andy Raibeck
>ADSM Level 2 Support
>408-256-0130
>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>