> But in the end, you'd like IBM not to reject the requirements, but > implement them... Making it harder to reject them is a way to > influence the trade-off, but not the most efficient way.
Yes. The basic tradeoff I'd hope for is that the response at least be thoughtful enough to tell us why the requirement was rejected, or at least to make me feel like I hadn't wasted my time writing it up. I know that VM requirements have been pretty quiet over the last few years, but hey, isn't getting a batch of them a good indication that somebody actually cares again? Or should I just submit them from different people so it looks like more people care? > I would hope there *is* in the plan a certain amount of effort to > implement user requirements (if not, then the entire circus could be > stopped). Exactly.
