Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Charles Mills]

Eric, thank you for expressing what many IBMers dare not.

Yes, I should have been clear. This attitude is from the cost-cutters, not from 
rank-and-file IBMers.

This approach appears to have ZERO support from in-the-trenches IBMers, 
customers, or ISVs. The only proponents are documentation management. To my 
mind, this is putting the priorities backwards.

Charles

On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:04:34 +, Eric D Rossman  wrote:

>To be clear, that might be IBM's response, but it is certainly not individual 
>IBMers' response. I, for one, appreciate feedback on the ICSF publications. I 
>have personally taken over 20 updates from fine folks like you for our 
>publications.
>
>Eric Rossman

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Steve Thompson]

Sorry, I'm a bit late to this, this morning.

But "...neither as available, functional ore reliable as those 
they replace" has been an ongoing complaint going back a few 
decades. And definitely deserves a *+1 *from me.


But I'm afraid that you are talking to this chap: Brick Wall, 
please allow me to introduce you to the users of the Tech 
Library. These are the people that keep z/OS (and others) running 
on hardware your employer develops and sells.


Steve Thompson


On 5/24/2023 10:49 AM, Art Gutowski wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:40:34 +, Allan Staller  wrote:


Classification: Confidential

This entire thread comes down to "the "new tools" are neither as available, 
functional ore reliable as those they replace".


I was hoping you'd say that.

+1 on RCFs and +1 on the above.

Art Gutowski

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
Regards,
Steve Thompson
VS Strategies LLC
Westfield IN
972-983-9430 cell

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Art Gutowski]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:40:34 +, Allan Staller  wrote:

>Classification: Confidential
>
>This entire thread comes down to "the "new tools" are neither as available, 
>functional ore reliable as those they replace".
>
I was hoping you'd say that.

+1 on RCFs and +1 on the above.

Art Gutowski

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Tom Brennan]

Years ago when I installed ServerPac's regularly, the software came with 
multiple install manuals.  The information was always there, but often 
difficult to find and I wasn't about to read each manual completely.  I 
used to joke about opening an IBMLink record with an install question, 
knowing they would simply point me to which manual and which page the 
answer was on.


On 5/23/2023 1:43 PM, Bob Bridges wrote:

Yes!  I've heard a lot of complaints about IBM documentation being confusing, 
and I know it's impossible to make EVERYTHING clear.  But one thing I've said 
over and over again for decades:  I may have to search the manuals for a long 
time to find what I'm looking for, but I can be pretty confident that the 
information is in there somewhere!  Not so with other products.

Not that the competing documentation is ~all~ crap.  But no one matches IBM in 
this regard.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Seymour J Metz]

Long ago in a galaxy far away, I was a systems programmer at a CDC 6400 site. 
The ALGOL 60 compiler for SCOPE was written in COMPASS, and the logic manual 
consisted solely of a translation of the compiler into *UNCOMMENTED* ALGOL. A 
CDC rep couldn't understand why I found hat unhelpful. 


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bob 
Bridges [robhbrid...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 4:43 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

Yes!  I've heard a lot of complaints about IBM documentation being confusing, 
and I know it's impossible to make EVERYTHING clear.  But one thing I've said 
over and over again for decades:  I may have to search the manuals for a long 
time to find what I'm looking for, but I can be pretty confident that the 
information is in there somewhere!  Not so with other products.

Not that the competing documentation is ~all~ crap.  But no one matches IBM in 
this regard.

---

A quick story.  (Well, maybe not so quick.)  An insurance company got mad at CA 
and decided to dump all CA products and replace them with others: Control-M, 
Zeke/Zebb/Zara and so forth.  They hired me to figure out what security rules 
existed for the CA products and what matching rules would be required for the 
new ones.

This involved a lot of talking on the phone to tech support at the various 
publishers.  Usually my question(s) would be pushed up to tier 2 and 3 before 
garnering an answer, and in the interim my original contact would sometimes 
disappear, having left the company or moved to another area; then I'd have to 
start over.

At one point, while talking to a tier-3 guy about the new tape-management 
system, I got tired of explaining my questions to him and wrote out a 
pseudocode decision table, showing all the possible combinations and how each 
one was to be addressed: Non-numeric tape VOLSERs, foreign tapes, unnamed DSs, 
DSs with special dates, I don't know what-all (it was almost 30 years ago).  At 
 four places in the pseudocode I inserted questions:  "On p37 the documentation 
says this, but on 105 it says this."  "Here the documentation says this, but 
what the heck does that mean?"  "I see no place in the documentation that 
explains how to handle this combination of factors."  There must be, I 
reasoned, some guy at the company who had helped write the product and could 
answer those four questions.

Great, said my tier-3 contact, this is what I need to get you your answers.  He 
hung up, and disappeared.  I never heard from him again.  I had to start over 
again.

A month later I had new tier-3 guy, and brought up the same question:  Surely 
you have some kind of decision table that explains how each situation is 
handled?  (It seemed so obvious that there should be something like that.)  
Yeah, he said, I've seen something like that around here.  I'll find a copy and 
send it to you.

Some of you know where this is going.  When the "decision table" arrived, it 
was a photocopy of mine; same printer (I think it was a DECWriter), same order, 
same four questions (none answered).

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* If ye make indentures with God how much ye will serve Him, ye shall find ye 
have signed both of them yourself.  -Thomas More */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Steve Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 15:19

Decades ago someone said to me, as I complained about an index issue (something 
I thought should have been in the index) -- "Why don't you go read the manuals 
for competing systems to IBM's mainframes and let me know what you think of 
their non-existent Index and barely adequate table of contents."

Well, it wasn't too long after that that I had the opportunity to work on a 
project where we had Univac systems.

I realized how much better IBM's manuals were.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Bob Bridges]

Yes!  I've heard a lot of complaints about IBM documentation being confusing, 
and I know it's impossible to make EVERYTHING clear.  But one thing I've said 
over and over again for decades:  I may have to search the manuals for a long 
time to find what I'm looking for, but I can be pretty confident that the 
information is in there somewhere!  Not so with other products.

Not that the competing documentation is ~all~ crap.  But no one matches IBM in 
this regard.

---

A quick story.  (Well, maybe not so quick.)  An insurance company got mad at CA 
and decided to dump all CA products and replace them with others: Control-M, 
Zeke/Zebb/Zara and so forth.  They hired me to figure out what security rules 
existed for the CA products and what matching rules would be required for the 
new ones.

This involved a lot of talking on the phone to tech support at the various 
publishers.  Usually my question(s) would be pushed up to tier 2 and 3 before 
garnering an answer, and in the interim my original contact would sometimes 
disappear, having left the company or moved to another area; then I'd have to 
start over.

At one point, while talking to a tier-3 guy about the new tape-management 
system, I got tired of explaining my questions to him and wrote out a 
pseudocode decision table, showing all the possible combinations and how each 
one was to be addressed: Non-numeric tape VOLSERs, foreign tapes, unnamed DSs, 
DSs with special dates, I don't know what-all (it was almost 30 years ago).  At 
 four places in the pseudocode I inserted questions:  "On p37 the documentation 
says this, but on 105 it says this."  "Here the documentation says this, but 
what the heck does that mean?"  "I see no place in the documentation that 
explains how to handle this combination of factors."  There must be, I 
reasoned, some guy at the company who had helped write the product and could 
answer those four questions.

Great, said my tier-3 contact, this is what I need to get you your answers.  He 
hung up, and disappeared.  I never heard from him again.  I had to start over 
again.

A month later I had new tier-3 guy, and brought up the same question:  Surely 
you have some kind of decision table that explains how each situation is 
handled?  (It seemed so obvious that there should be something like that.)  
Yeah, he said, I've seen something like that around here.  I'll find a copy and 
send it to you.

Some of you know where this is going.  When the "decision table" arrived, it 
was a photocopy of mine; same printer (I think it was a DECWriter), same order, 
same four questions (none answered).  

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* If ye make indentures with God how much ye will serve Him, ye shall find ye 
have signed both of them yourself.  -Thomas More */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Steve Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 15:19

Decades ago someone said to me, as I complained about an index issue (something 
I thought should have been in the index) -- "Why don't you go read the manuals 
for competing systems to IBM's mainframes and let me know what you think of 
their non-existent Index and barely adequate table of contents."

Well, it wasn't too long after that that I had the opportunity to work on a 
project where we had Univac systems.

I realized how much better IBM's manuals were.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[esst...@juno.com]

+1

-- Original Message --
From: Robert Keahey 
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 09:38:33 -0500

+1

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Tom Brennan]

Maybe they could simplify things and just include author (or at least 
current owner) email addresses like they do on the redbooks.  Take out 
the complex communication system.  Authors/owners who care (and I'm sure 
most do) would probably be glad to get direct feedback to make their doc 
better - like Eric implied.


On 5/23/2023 10:13 AM, Colin Paice wrote:

I send in marked up pdf files !  It saves time having to specify which line
you are talking about.

Their current online system only allows one comment per day on each page.
It takes more time to enter the data than than an email, where you can cut
and paste.

Can they get management to use the current ( email and online) systems for
themselves?

A wiki approach would be good.

Colin

On Tue, May 23, 2023, 18:42 Seymour J Metz  wrote:


What are they smoking?


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf
of Charles Mills 
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 6:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to
remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers
and ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you
answer No, you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also
apparently now no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement
against IBM documentation.

We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements,
clarifications or corrections to IBM manuals.

If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not make
it happen. Here is what might make it happen:

- You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM
powers that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong
evidence that what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
- You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here:
https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691
(apologies for any fold).
- If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If
you simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely.
- If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other products
such as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get
them to chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation
team is “IBM has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of them –
what’s wrong with you z/OS people?”

Thank you.
Charles

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN




--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Steve Thompson]

IBM's Management's bonuses are not based on good doc being available.

Sales people do not have to show how good the doc is to make 
sales, so they don't care either.


Decades ago someone said to me, as I complained about an index 
issue (something I thought should have been in the index) -- "Why 
don't you go read the manuals for competing systems to IBM's 
mainframes and let me know what you think of their non-existent 
Index and barely adequate table of contents."


Well, it wasn't too long after that that I had the opportunity to 
work on a project where we had Univac systems.


I realized how much better IBM's manuals were.

And so IBM's management is focused on what will keep their 
bonuses going. And Doc is an expense they want to cut back on


This is why we have to make noise.

Just say'n'
Steve Thompson

On 5/23/2023 9:40 AM, Charles Mills wrote:

I find it kind of amazing. Here is a bunch of dedicated people, many of us with 
40 or more years of experience, willing to help IBM make their documentation 
better AT NO CHARGE TO IBM. And what is IBM's response? Take a hike.

You know, there are many things that have made this platform successful over 
the years. Certainly, high on the list are the business and the engineering or 
technical features. But also there is the thoroughness and accuracy of the 
documentation, and the enthusiastic user community. IBM might want to think 
twice before messing with the goose that laid the golden egg.

Charles

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
Regards,
Steve Thompson
VS Strategies LLC
Westfield IN
972-983-9430 cell

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Colin Paice]

I send in marked up pdf files !  It saves time having to specify which line
you are talking about.

Their current online system only allows one comment per day on each page.
It takes more time to enter the data than than an email, where you can cut
and paste.

Can they get management to use the current ( email and online) systems for
themselves?

A wiki approach would be good.

Colin

On Tue, May 23, 2023, 18:42 Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> What are they smoking?
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf
> of Charles Mills 
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 6:05 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?
>
> For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to
> remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers
> and ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you
> answer No, you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also
> apparently now no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement
> against IBM documentation.
>
> We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements,
> clarifications or corrections to IBM manuals.
>
> If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not make
> it happen. Here is what might make it happen:
>
> - You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM
> powers that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong
> evidence that what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
> - You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here:
> https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691
> (apologies for any fold).
> - If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If
> you simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely.
> - If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other products
> such as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get
> them to chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation
> team is “IBM has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of them –
> what’s wrong with you z/OS people?”
>
> Thank you.
> Charles
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Michael Babcock]

+1

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 9:19 AM Gord Tomlin 
wrote:

> +1
>
> --
>
> Regards, Gord Tomlin
> Action Software International
> (a division of Mazda Computer Corporation)
> Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507
> Support: https://actionsoftware.com/support/
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 
Michael Babcock
OneMain Financial
z/OS Systems Programmer, Lead

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Seymour J Metz]

What are they smoking?


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Charles Mills 
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 6:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to 
remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers and 
ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you answer No, 
you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also apparently now 
no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement against IBM 
documentation.

We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements, clarifications 
or corrections to IBM manuals.

If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not make it 
happen. Here is what might make it happen:

- You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM powers 
that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong evidence that 
what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
- You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here: 
https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691 
(apologies for any fold).
- If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If you 
simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely.
- If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other products such 
as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get them to 
chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation team is “IBM 
has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of them – what’s wrong 
with you z/OS people?”

Thank you.
Charles

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Eric D Rossman]

To be clear, that might be IBM's response, but it is certainly not individual 
IBMers' response. I, for one, appreciate feedback on the ICSF publications. I 
have personally taken over 20 updates from fine folks like you for our 
publications.

Eric Rossman

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 9:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type 
process?

I find it kind of amazing. Here is a bunch of dedicated people, many of us with 
40 or more years of experience, willing to help IBM make their documentation 
better AT NO CHARGE TO IBM. And what is IBM's response? Take a hike.

You know, there are many things that have made this platform successful over 
the years. Certainly, high on the list are the business and the engineering or 
technical features. But also there is the thoroughness and accuracy of the 
documentation, and the enthusiastic user community. IBM might want to think 
twice before messing with the goose that laid the golden egg.

Charles

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Dana Mitchell]

+1

I fully agree with opinions expressed here.

Dana Mitchell

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Robert Keahey]

+1

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Gord Tomlin]

+1

--

Regards, Gord Tomlin
Action Software International
(a division of Mazda Computer Corporation)
Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507
Support: https://actionsoftware.com/support/

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Charles Mills]

I find it kind of amazing. Here is a bunch of dedicated people, many of us with 
40 or more years of experience, willing to help IBM make their documentation 
better AT NO CHARGE TO IBM. And what is IBM's response? Take a hike.

You know, there are many things that have made this platform successful over 
the years. Certainly, high on the list are the business and the engineering or 
technical features. But also there is the thoroughness and accuracy of the 
documentation, and the enthusiastic user community. IBM might want to think 
twice before messing with the goose that laid the golden egg.

Charles

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: [EXTERNAL] Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Pommier, Rex]

+1  

Rex Pommier

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 5:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type 
process?

For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to 
remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers and 
ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you answer No, 
you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also apparently now 
no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement against IBM 
documentation.

We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements, clarifications 
or corrections to IBM manuals.

If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not make it 
happen. Here is what might make it happen:

- You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM powers 
that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong evidence that 
what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
- You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6eLE0Fj!ryZftNAfSJF0bjEwS05HxUwa6Oh-uP2KWNXNRSgx2yNUjWoUX61U6x2qrcafMbHU5yF1elkXuwyER6tZRA$
  (apologies for any fold).
- If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If you 
simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely. 
- If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other products such 
as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get them to 
chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation team is “IBM 
has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of them – what’s wrong 
with you z/OS people?”

Thank you.
Charles

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from 
disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not 
the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, 
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this 
message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard 
copy format. Thank you.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Allan Staller]

Classification: Confidential

This entire thread comes down to "the "new tools" are neither as available, 
functional ore reliable as those they replace".

::DISCLAIMER::

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Lionel B. Dyck]

+1


Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com
Github: https://github.com/lbdyck

“Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you 
are, reputation merely what others think you are.”   - - - John Wooden

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
René Jansen
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 5:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

+1

René Jansen.

> On 23 May 2023, at 09:44, Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw 
> <032fff1be9b4-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> +1
> Voted for Peter Farley's RFE as well.
> 
> Lennie
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On 
> Behalf Of Charles Mills
> Sent: 22 May 2023 23:06
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?
> 
> For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to 
> remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers 
> and ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you 
> answer No, you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also 
> apparently now no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement 
> against IBM documentation.
> 
> We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements, 
> clarifications or corrections to IBM manuals.
> 
> If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not make it 
> happen. Here is what might make it happen:
> 
> - You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM powers 
> that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong evidence that 
> what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
> - You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here: 
> https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691 
> (apologies for any fold).
> - If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If you 
> simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely. 
> - If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other products 
> such as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get them 
> to chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation team is 
> “IBM has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of them – what’s 
> wrong with you z/OS people?”
> 
> Thank you.
> Charles
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[René Jansen]

+1

René Jansen.

> On 23 May 2023, at 09:44, Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw 
> <032fff1be9b4-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> +1
> Voted for Peter Farley's RFE as well.
> 
> Lennie
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
> Charles Mills
> Sent: 22 May 2023 23:06
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?
> 
> For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to 
> remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers 
> and ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you 
> answer No, you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also 
> apparently now no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement 
> against IBM documentation.
> 
> We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements, 
> clarifications or corrections to IBM manuals.
> 
> If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not make it 
> happen. Here is what might make it happen:
> 
> - You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM powers 
> that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong evidence that 
> what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
> - You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here: 
> https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691 
> (apologies for any fold).
> - If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If you 
> simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely. 
> - If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other products 
> such as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get them 
> to chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation team is 
> “IBM has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of them – what’s 
> wrong with you z/OS people?”
> 
> Thank you.
> Charles
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
> lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw]

+1
Voted for Peter Farley's RFE as well.

Lennie

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: 22 May 2023 23:06
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to 
remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers and 
ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you answer No, 
you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also apparently now 
no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement against IBM 
documentation.

We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements, clarifications 
or corrections to IBM manuals.

If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not make it 
happen. Here is what might make it happen:

- You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM powers 
that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong evidence that 
what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
- You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here: 
https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691 
(apologies for any fold).
- If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If you 
simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely. 
- If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other products such 
as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get them to 
chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation team is “IBM 
has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of them – what’s wrong 
with you z/OS people?”

Thank you.
Charles

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Mike Shorkend]

+1

On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 05:31, Doug Shupe  wrote:

> +1 and more
>
> Stay Safe
>
> > On May 22, 2023, at 19:19, Ramsey Hallman 
> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I agree whole-heartedly with Mike and Charles.
> >
> > Ramsey Hallman
> > MVS/Quickref Support Group
> > Chicago-Soft, LTD.
> >
> >> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 5:34 PM Mike Shaw 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> I have been working with IBM z/OS documentation for over 40 years and
> have
> >> submitted many reader comment forms in that time. In that time I have
> found
> >> and reported typographical errors, inconsistencies, obsolete
> information,
> >> and even flat-out WRONG statements.
> >>
> >> Without real-world feedback from z/OS professionals who actually USE the
> >> documentation, it's accuracy and usability will not improve.
> >>
> >> IBM has good technical documentation writers but they are NOT end-users.
> >>
> >> Eliminating RCFs disconnects authors of the documentation from
> consumers of
> >> the documentation...NOT a good idea.
> >>
> >> Mike Shaw
> >> MVS/QuickRef Support Group
> >> Chicago-Soft, Ltd.
> >>
> >>> On Mon, May 22, 2023, 6:05 PM Charles Mills  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track
> to
> >>> remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years.
> >> Customers
> >>> and ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you
> >>> answer No, you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is
> also
> >>> apparently now no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement
> >>> against IBM documentation.
> >>>
> >>> We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements,
> >>> clarifications or corrections to IBM manuals.
> >>>
> >>> If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not
> >> make
> >>> it happen. Here is what might make it happen:
> >>>
> >>> - You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM
> >>> powers that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong
> >>> evidence that what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
> >>> - You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here:
> >>>
> >>
> https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691
> >>> (apologies for any fold).
> >>> - If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know.
> If
> >>> you simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely.
> >>> - If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other
> >> products
> >>> such as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get
> >>> them to chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the
> documentation
> >>> team is “IBM has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of
> >> them –
> >>> what’s wrong with you z/OS people?”
> >>>
> >>> Thank you.
> >>> Charles
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> >>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >>
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>


-- 
Mike Shorkend
m...@shorkend.com
Tel: +972524208743





--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Doug Shupe]

+1 and more

Stay Safe

> On May 22, 2023, at 19:19, Ramsey Hallman  wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> I agree whole-heartedly with Mike and Charles.
> 
> Ramsey Hallman
> MVS/Quickref Support Group
> Chicago-Soft, LTD.
> 
>> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 5:34 PM Mike Shaw  wrote:
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> I have been working with IBM z/OS documentation for over 40 years and have
>> submitted many reader comment forms in that time. In that time I have found
>> and reported typographical errors, inconsistencies, obsolete information,
>> and even flat-out WRONG statements.
>> 
>> Without real-world feedback from z/OS professionals who actually USE the
>> documentation, it's accuracy and usability will not improve.
>> 
>> IBM has good technical documentation writers but they are NOT end-users.
>> 
>> Eliminating RCFs disconnects authors of the documentation from consumers of
>> the documentation...NOT a good idea.
>> 
>> Mike Shaw
>> MVS/QuickRef Support Group
>> Chicago-Soft, Ltd.
>> 
>>> On Mon, May 22, 2023, 6:05 PM Charles Mills  wrote:
>>> 
>>> For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to
>>> remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years.
>> Customers
>>> and ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you
>>> answer No, you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also
>>> apparently now no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement
>>> against IBM documentation.
>>> 
>>> We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements,
>>> clarifications or corrections to IBM manuals.
>>> 
>>> If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not
>> make
>>> it happen. Here is what might make it happen:
>>> 
>>> - You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM
>>> powers that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong
>>> evidence that what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
>>> - You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here:
>>> 
>> https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691
>>> (apologies for any fold).
>>> - If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If
>>> you simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely.
>>> - If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other
>> products
>>> such as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get
>>> them to chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation
>>> team is “IBM has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of
>> them –
>>> what’s wrong with you z/OS people?”
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> Charles
>>> 
>>> --
>>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>> 
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[zMan]

+1000

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 7:59 PM Steve Thompson  wrote:

> +1 to what Mike and Charles have said.
>
> And I too have done much of what Mike said below over the past 40
> years.
>
> Things wrong in RTM relative to SRBs and FRRs. Fairly recently I
> found a bug in ESPIE. I've reported doc that is wrong about
> Macros, or the Macro is wrong relative to the doc. Or the sample
> can't be copied because the way the PDF is built, the copy for
> paste doesn't work right.
>
> BPXDYN2 -- Showed them where the COBOL samples were going to
> confuse newbie COBOL programmers.
>
> I have had arguments with IBM management on some of these
> subjects as a contractor, client and employee.
>
> BTW -- I did vote for Peter's RFE. What an ordeal to get an
> account to be able to vote on an RFE.
>
> Steve Thompson
>
>
>
> On 5/22/2023 6:33 PM, Mike Shaw wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > I have been working with IBM z/OS documentation for over 40 years and
> have
> > submitted many reader comment forms in that time. In that time I have
> found
> > and reported typographical errors, inconsistencies, obsolete information,
> > and even flat-out WRONG statements.
> >
> > Without real-world feedback from z/OS professionals who actually USE the
> > documentation, it's accuracy and usability will not improve.
> >
> > IBM has good technical documentation writers but they are NOT end-users.
> >
> > Eliminating RCFs disconnects authors of the documentation from consumers
> of
> > the documentation...NOT a good idea.
> >
> > Mike Shaw
> > MVS/QuickRef Support Group
> > Chicago-Soft, Ltd.
> >
> > On Mon, May 22, 2023, 6:05 PM Charles Mills  wrote:
> >
> >> For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track
> to
> >> remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years.
> Customers
> >> and ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you
> >> answer No, you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is
> also
> >> apparently now no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement
> >> against IBM documentation.
> >>
> >> We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements,
> >> clarifications or corrections to IBM manuals.
> >>
> >> If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not
> make
> >> it happen. Here is what might make it happen:
> >>
> >> - You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM
> >> powers that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong
> >> evidence that what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
> >> - You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here:
> >>
> https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691
> >> (apologies for any fold).
> >> - If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If
> >> you simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely.
> >> - If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other
> products
> >> such as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get
> >> them to chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation
> >> team is “IBM has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of
> them –
> >> what’s wrong with you z/OS people?”
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >> Charles
> >>
> >> --
> >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >>
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>


-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Steve Thompson]

+1 to what Mike and Charles have said.

And I too have done much of what Mike said below over the past 40 
years.


Things wrong in RTM relative to SRBs and FRRs. Fairly recently I 
found a bug in ESPIE. I've reported doc that is wrong about 
Macros, or the Macro is wrong relative to the doc. Or the sample 
can't be copied because the way the PDF is built, the copy for 
paste doesn't work right.


BPXDYN2 -- Showed them where the COBOL samples were going to 
confuse newbie COBOL programmers.


I have had arguments with IBM management on some of these 
subjects as a contractor, client and employee.


BTW -- I did vote for Peter's RFE. What an ordeal to get an 
account to be able to vote on an RFE.


Steve Thompson



On 5/22/2023 6:33 PM, Mike Shaw wrote:

+1

I have been working with IBM z/OS documentation for over 40 years and have
submitted many reader comment forms in that time. In that time I have found
and reported typographical errors, inconsistencies, obsolete information,
and even flat-out WRONG statements.

Without real-world feedback from z/OS professionals who actually USE the
documentation, it's accuracy and usability will not improve.

IBM has good technical documentation writers but they are NOT end-users.

Eliminating RCFs disconnects authors of the documentation from consumers of
the documentation...NOT a good idea.

Mike Shaw
MVS/QuickRef Support Group
Chicago-Soft, Ltd.

On Mon, May 22, 2023, 6:05 PM Charles Mills  wrote:


For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to
remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers
and ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you
answer No, you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also
apparently now no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement
against IBM documentation.

We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements,
clarifications or corrections to IBM manuals.

If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not make
it happen. Here is what might make it happen:

- You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM
powers that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong
evidence that what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
- You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here:
https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691
(apologies for any fold).
- If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If
you simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely.
- If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other products
such as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get
them to chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation
team is “IBM has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of them –
what’s wrong with you z/OS people?”

Thank you.
Charles

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[David Crayford]

+1

> On 23 May 2023, at 6:05 am, Charles Mills  wrote:
> 
> For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to 
> remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers 
> and ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you 
> answer No, you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also 
> apparently now no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement 
> against IBM documentation.
> 
> We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements, 
> clarifications or corrections to IBM manuals.
> 
> If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not make it 
> happen. Here is what might make it happen:
> 
> - You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM powers 
> that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong evidence that 
> what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
> - You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here: 
> https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691 
> (apologies for any fold).
> - If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If you 
> simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely. 
> - If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other products 
> such as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get them 
> to chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation team is 
> “IBM has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of them – what’s 
> wrong with you z/OS people?”
> 
> Thank you.
> Charles
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Ramsey Hallman]

+1

I agree whole-heartedly with Mike and Charles.

Ramsey Hallman
MVS/Quickref Support Group
Chicago-Soft, LTD.

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 5:34 PM Mike Shaw  wrote:

> +1
>
> I have been working with IBM z/OS documentation for over 40 years and have
> submitted many reader comment forms in that time. In that time I have found
> and reported typographical errors, inconsistencies, obsolete information,
> and even flat-out WRONG statements.
>
> Without real-world feedback from z/OS professionals who actually USE the
> documentation, it's accuracy and usability will not improve.
>
> IBM has good technical documentation writers but they are NOT end-users.
>
> Eliminating RCFs disconnects authors of the documentation from consumers of
> the documentation...NOT a good idea.
>
> Mike Shaw
> MVS/QuickRef Support Group
> Chicago-Soft, Ltd.
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2023, 6:05 PM Charles Mills  wrote:
>
> > For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to
> > remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years.
> Customers
> > and ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you
> > answer No, you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also
> > apparently now no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement
> > against IBM documentation.
> >
> > We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements,
> > clarifications or corrections to IBM manuals.
> >
> > If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not
> make
> > it happen. Here is what might make it happen:
> >
> > - You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM
> > powers that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong
> > evidence that what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
> > - You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here:
> >
> https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691
> > (apologies for any fold).
> > - If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If
> > you simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely.
> > - If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other
> products
> > such as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get
> > them to chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation
> > team is “IBM has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of
> them –
> > what’s wrong with you z/OS people?”
> >
> > Thank you.
> > Charles
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Mike Shaw]

+1

I have been working with IBM z/OS documentation for over 40 years and have
submitted many reader comment forms in that time. In that time I have found
and reported typographical errors, inconsistencies, obsolete information,
and even flat-out WRONG statements.

Without real-world feedback from z/OS professionals who actually USE the
documentation, it's accuracy and usability will not improve.

IBM has good technical documentation writers but they are NOT end-users.

Eliminating RCFs disconnects authors of the documentation from consumers of
the documentation...NOT a good idea.

Mike Shaw
MVS/QuickRef Support Group
Chicago-Soft, Ltd.

On Mon, May 22, 2023, 6:05 PM Charles Mills  wrote:

> For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to
> remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers
> and ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you
> answer No, you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also
> apparently now no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement
> against IBM documentation.
>
> We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements,
> clarifications or corrections to IBM manuals.
>
> If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not make
> it happen. Here is what might make it happen:
>
> - You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM
> powers that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong
> evidence that what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
> - You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here:
> https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691
> (apologies for any fold).
> - If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If
> you simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely.
> - If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other products
> such as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get
> them to chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation
> team is “IBM has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of them –
> what’s wrong with you z/OS people?”
>
> Thank you.
> Charles
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Are you serious about wanting a better IBM doc RCF-type process?

[Charles Mills]

For those who have not been following this discussion, IBM is on track to 
remove the RCF process as we have known it for forty or so years. Customers and 
ISVs will be limited to a Web pop-up “Was this helpful?” and if you answer No, 
you will be able to briefly justify that answer. There is also apparently now 
no path whatsoever for a customer to open a requirement against IBM 
documentation.

We need a way to provide formatted suggestions for improvements, clarifications 
or corrections to IBM manuals.

If you would like that, then wishing and hoping and grumping will not make it 
happen. Here is what might make it happen:

- You could start by replying with a simple +1 to this post. The IBM powers 
that be do not participate in this forum, but there is strong evidence that 
what happens here sometimes percolates in that direction.
- You could vote for Peter Farley’s RFE. Find it here: 
https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-3691 
(apologies for any fold).
- If you have an IBM rep at your shop, you could let him or her know. If you 
simply know an IBMer you could tell him or her nicely. 
- If you have contacts who are responsible at your shop for other products such 
as the languages, Db2, CICS, MQ and so forth, you could try to get them to 
chime in. Apparently one of the pushbacks from the documentation team is “IBM 
has 1200 products and our process works fine for all of them – what’s wrong 
with you z/OS people?”

Thank you.
Charles

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN