ADSM-L

Re: Requirements submissions....

1996-06-05 11:20:59
Subject: Re: Requirements submissions....
From: "Andrew M. Raibeck" <araibeck AT VNET.IBM DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 08:20:59 PDT
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>