On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:38:56 -0600, Ed Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... >That (to me) is a reason that is slightly on the paranoid side. If >that were the case (and I am not agreeing that it is) then you >(SHARE) should not let any vendor attend *ANY* SHARE sessions that >pertains to requirements voting's otherwise they can gleam the >information from the (either displayed on a projection screen or >handed out by the project). Paranoid or not, that is SHARE's policy and that is what IBM agrees with. Feel free to create your own less paranoid requirements process and work with IBM to set up a formal interface. On the other hand, it is absurd to say a vendor of (for instance) printers could not participate in DB2 requirements. If there is no conflict of interest there is nothing to prevent participation. >... >If you are suggesting that OEM vendors are not allowed to submit >requirements, that is a new one on me as I have seen it done. ... >... I am nore than suggesting that. Vendors with conflicts of interest are not allowed to participate. Back when there were Requirements sessions for discussion (mostly done away with now) and voting (completely done away with) I saw vendors kicked out. That must have been over 15 years ago. There was a standard foil to display stating that would happen. > ... Now I >didn't say it was accepted by the group but if you are indicating >that no vendors are present during voting then I will disagree as I >have seen it and to be honest I could have cared less as none of the >requirements were all that important (trade secrets). These were >simple requirements that SHARE handles almost daily. As I said, this was a a "conflict of interest" policy. Most vendors were allowed most of the time. > >I have seen the case (and was there when it occurred) where IBM got >upset that a vendor was invited to a show and tell of IBM storage >futures. IBM had every right to be mad and withheld a lot of >information (rightfully so, IMO) and it was a wasted trip for me. ... SHARE's Requirements process is covered by its own SHARE policy. Show-and-tell sessions are covered by a different set. I klnow that presenters can ask that the press not be present (sort of an odd policy IMO). I'm not aware that they can request that competitors not be present, but that seems at least as reasonable a request to me. In any case, IBM could have requested a "closed session". >... >> approved. This is not restrictive in any unreasonable way. Any >> SHARE member can (and is encouraged to) register to any group >> he/his has interest in. >The issue is access AFTER the submission. I was not speaking about submission. Once registered, the user can view all requirements submitted through that project. >... ... As written above it is semi >foolish to think that this information is somehow secret. ... >... Fine. You clearly don't like the existing process. As I suggested earlier, create you own process and work with IBM to make it official. Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
