On Aug 7, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Ed Finnell wrote:
----------------------SNIP-------------------------
Mostly it's still a craft mentality. They assume qualified people
with up to date skill sets will be installing current
software to run multi-million/billion/trillion dollar enterprises and
controlling the successful roll-in of security, communications, and
the environment
that the rest of the company uses to make it's wares available to it's
customers in a current and timely fashion.
Think I lot of it has to do with loss of presence and support staff.
The
SE's and PSR's were a great feedback mechanism. If
it got too bad they could pick up the phone and yell at somebody
and get almost instant committal on go/nogo decisions. Or if
the package was poorly prepared or confusing they could file
RFC's directly.
Ed,
That is true as well. If we were talking about 25 pages of doc that
might be reasonable thing to do. However in the case of a CBPDO the d/l
step hardly rates a half a page so the excuse of wasted paper is not
really valid.
A few times over my life time of a sysprog, I have found that IBM (the
"old guard") has been less than inclined to correct a minor error. The
"new" people are all over the place some are more dug in that the "old"
IBM types. Once you run into that type either give up or call in some
IOU's from IBM types from GUIDE/SHARE/friend to get your point across.
It is strange (now that you mention it) that RFC's were (at least in my
experience) were never attached in installation doc. That I agree
should be made mandatory.
That alone should be made a SHARE requirement. GREAT suggestion.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
