I would volunteer; I would even manage the system if funds were secured for the hosting and licenses from a set of benefactors. Licenses for things like the db and ars; I can go with free OS's, web servers, servlet containers, etc.
It would be nice to have an arserver to use as part of a test harness for the open source projects to set up a continuous build system as well. Axton On 4/20/07, Carey Matthew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rick, Sigh... If I ruled the world.... Or more to the point... Where the RFE request goes after we hit "submit" really should not matter to the customer. If the request is first read by a "Level 1 support tech" where they go though it and verify that "all the needed stuff is there" then that should be just fine to any customer. If the request is not "quite right" then Level 1 can contact the requester and "fix it together". However, if all the needed information is there, then they can just "approve" it and forward it on to the Engineering team for further review. How much time Level 1 should spend on RFE review vs Trouble tickets... well... that might be a different factor to add to the Support Contract matrix. (or to let other customers help in this process... see below.) What is apparently absent from the discussion is what is the difference (in data structure) between an incident and an RFE? I would bet that the things that would be "required" are quite different between the two requests. So if there are differences, then they should be handled with separate forms (and/or) processes. If 30% of the RFE's were not really RFE's then that says to me that the data collected needs to be improved. ( For example: A customer should be required to submit more than "a question" to create an RFE. ) I have no problem with the "minimum" being raised to be able to submit an RFE. I would think it completely reasonable if multiple customers (say... 5, or 50) had to all say: "Yes, I want that too" before Level 1 OR Engineering was even bothered to go look at it. (Just tell us what that number is. :) However that would require that RFE's could be seen by ALL customers that own the product. * Maybe a flag could be provided on the customer RFE submit page that lets us publish the RFE to "all customers" and would allow it to be "voted on". If the flag is not set then the request will be reviewed based on the support contract effort they pay for. * Maybe the number of votes a Support Contract has is limited and varies based on the support level purchased. * Maybe RFE's that are "voted on" could have more weight than the "private RFE" requests after the vote count reaches..."x" (50 -100?) <sarcasm> Now where can BMC find a application development environment that could be used to build such an application. You know, with multiple users, required fields, row level access rights, approval processes, and Status/life cycles. Hum... </sarcasm> I would even be interested in seeing BMC offer an ARS Server license with enough fixed license for ARSList/ARSWiki to build such an application for them. ( Provide the spec and lets see if you can get some "open sourced" work going on such an application. Maybe the goal could be as simple as to reproduce BUGZILLA in an ARS application. :) They could even throw in a DSO license (or publish a web service) then a clean interface could be defined by BMC and the user facing application could do whatever it needs to do to meet the minimum requirement before it is transferred to BMC. (Or customers could even host a locked(deployable) "Customer side BMC support application" so that they could extend it as to their own needs and BMC would get updates as the workflow was defined by them. ) Am I nuts? Are there multiple developers out there that would volunteer their time to build support applications so that they could be better support from a vendor? I know I would be willing to work a little extra so that I can get a little extra. Especially if the work I was doing was open sourced AND ARS based. Please sound off and tell BMC if you think you would help on such a project. (Assuming they would provide some resources (maybe just licenses) to enable such a project.) It appears to me that BMC is missing an opportunity to be responsive to their customers and to USE their customers (and their own products) to the fullest of BMC's advantage. Again... If I ruled the world.... -- Carey Matthew Black Remedy Skilled Professional (RSP) ARS = Action Request System(Remedy) Love, then teach Solution = People + Process + Tools Fast, Accurate, Cheap.... Pick two. On 4/20/07, Rick Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David, while those are good points, it seems that if we as developers can > create effective means of using Remedy to require data from our > less-sophisticated end users that allows us to help them, then surely the > smart folks at BMC can figure out a way to help us smart folks enter data > that's actually helpful to them. > > I understand that this may be a priority/resource issue right now, but > if/when it reaches the front burner, perhaps a meeting of the minds between > engineering and the customers (us) would be in order, to ensure that the > solution works well for both parties? > > Rick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Easter, David > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:11 PM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Enhancement Request, anyone? > > > > AFAIK, there is an internal effort at BMC to create and rfe interface, > but it doesn't yet exist. > > Actually, at this time, the plan is to continue to require a support rep to > be involved in the process of opening an RFE. One primary reason is that > over 30% of the RFE's opened directly by customers had errors of some kind > (wrong product, support question vs. RFE, poorly defined request, etc.). > Including the support rep means the RFEs are now more correctly defined and > can be processes much quicker than before. > > There are other benefits (e.g. bugs can now be converted to RFE's without > the loss of tracking, customer incidents are linked to the RFE, > etc.) > > While I'm not discounting the possibility that customers may be able to > enter their own RFE's again in the future, there's AFAIK no internal effort > to re-create that interface. > > Thanks, > > -David J. Easter > Sr. Product Manager, Service Management Business Unit BMC Software, Inc. > > The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in > this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. > My voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as > a spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, > Inc. <snip> > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron Keller > > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 12:42 PM > > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > > Subject: Enhancement Request, anyone? > > > > > > ** > > Didn't there used to be a link on the support website to submit an > > enhancement request? > > Either it's just my Friday fog, or it's no longer there... > > > > > > -Aaron > > > > * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
_______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
