Thanks for providing the background on the separationon the list. I agree
with most everything you have said, and I certainly said a lot on this subject
yesterday. I have just a few short things to add.
1. A side benefit of having the "R" list separate from the "L" list is the
actual separation - notes on the "R" list are (hopefully) just about
requirements, and not of the "How do I" or "Something wierd just happened" var
iety. Discussions are at a higher level, in my experience.
2. As long time IBM customers, we should not forget that with ADSM, people who
might never have used IBM hardware or software are now using the product.
They do not know (or sometimes even care) about GUIDE and SHARE - they have
their own user groups and priorities. That doesn't mean that they don't have
good ideas and needs - in fact, they may just have an original way to think
about an issue because they haven't had the benefit of all those years of Big
Blue exposure (no pun intended).
3. I agree with your points about it being easy to write an e-mail. That,
however, is also a plus, in that if there is no discussion of a particular
submission, then priority should be low. On the other hand, if a lot of discu
ssion is generated, then obviously the item has more interest and should have
a higher priority.
Jerry Lawson
jlawson AT itthartford DOT com
PS. Sorry about the false promotion. I hope that your faculty's expectations
weren't outrageously elevated :-)>
________________________Forward Header________________________
Author: INTERNET.OWNERAD1
Subject: Re: Requirements Submissions - the Sequal
06-06-96 04:15 PM
Jerry,
Thanks for an entertaining posting....%-) I thought my life was rough!
Also, thanks for promoting us from a college to a university. I know
a few faculty who are definately aspiring to that lofty height....%-)
I'd like to clarify a couple of points. This list was purposely kept
informal to avoid all those nasty political entanglements which arise
when you are formally sponsored by a group such as SHARE, GUIDE or even
IBM. This way, anyone can participate (including non-SHARE or GUIDE
members) and can say what they wish. Paul's comment about the IBM'ers
participation was right on. I had envisioned this list as a place where
we could iron our ideas for requirements, not a place for debating with
IBM on a specific issue. I think it gives ADSM Development a chance to
hear what the customers are saying without being specific targets of the
conversation, or without having to make promises they may not be able
to keep.
At the last SHARE conference (in March), Jeff Robbins and Bill Colwell(sp?)
took many of the items from this list and did hammer them into requirements.
These were presented and discussed at a session and voted upon. We'll hear
the IBM response in July at the next conference. Perhaps Jeff or Bill will
post the responses when they become public? So, something is being done
with the discussion from this list. If someone wishes to do the same thing
through Guide, they are welcome to do so.
My basic philosophy is that this list is what you make it. If you feel
strongly enough about a requirement for ADSM, then you should set
aside some time to work with others to get that requirement stated and
submitted to IBM. As Jerry mentioned, the ADSM developers have been
great about responding to suggestions and requirements. Therefore,
there's no excuse for not persuing a requirement if you need it enough.
Just posting a note to an e-mail list isn't really fair to IBM. The
developers need to be able to judge how important a requirement is compared
to all the other requests they get. Sending an e-mail note is easy, and
doesn't indicate the level of necessity of the requirement. I could send
20 notes to the list, asking for 20 different things. What priority should
each have? However, if I'm willing to sit down, write out a requirement and
convince others to vote on it, then I've shown that this need is strong enough
for me to devote time to resolving it.
I think this list is a great place to start that process. Float an idea and
see who responds. Maybe they can improve on that idea. In the end, you can
iron out something which will have the support of other ADSM customers and
can be considered a serious request. Its no guarentee that the requirement
will be accepted or even done. However, demonstrating customer support
for the idea is a big step forward.
The main reason for seperating the "R" list from the "L" list is that I
didn't want the conversation side tracked with the other issues that commonly
come up on the "L" list.
Finally, it is really bad "netiquette" to repost someone's note on another
list with the author's permission. To do so without identifying yourself
is even more rude. It was probably an innocent mistake, never intended to
cause problems. However, I hope whoever did it will learn from this and
refrain from doing it in the future.
Martha
|
