Re: SR Policy
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:57:04 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: I would infer that IBM wants to know whether it warrants an immediate fix or whether FIN is an acceptable resolution. FIN does not mean never, and I've even opened ETR's in which I suggested that FIN was appropriate. I received off-list a communication from an IBM employee explaining that the purpose is to gather statistics for quality control; it did not mention assigning priority of response. Yet I wonder, if the flaw had been discovered internal to IBM during engineering test, would it have been repaired (just because it's the right thing to do), or might schedule pressure have sent the product to market with the flaw. I doubt that the behavior I reported was tested; most likely that no one thought of the critical combination of inputs; less likely that it was deemed insufficiently important to test. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
SR Policy
I just got a reply to an SR asking for more information about the problem, then adding the text: Please also let me know what impact this issue has on your day to day business so we can understand the situation better. I look forward to your reply and clarification. Thanks! Am I to infer that IBM no longer believes in repairing defects simply because it's the right thing to do? This rather blurs the line between an SR and a requirement. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SR Policy
I have seen this question with most vendors. What is the impact to your environment. How critical is this to be fixed. I think it helps them to triage the problem and put it in the queue where it will get the correct attention. Is this a SHOP DOWN or a Minor inconvenience. Lizette -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:41 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: SR Policy I just got a reply to an SR asking for more information about the problem, then adding the text: Please also let me know what impact this issue has on your day to day business so we can understand the situation better. I look forward to your reply and clarification. Thanks! Am I to infer that IBM no longer believes in repairing defects simply because it's the right thing to do? This rather blurs the line between an SR and a requirement. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SR Policy
Right, severity. Charles Composed on a mobile: please excuse my brevity Lizette Koehler stars...@mindspring.com wrote: I have seen this question with most vendors. What is the impact to your environment. How critical is this to be fixed. I think it helps them to triage the problem and put it in the queue where it will get the correct attention. Is this a SHOP DOWN or a Minor inconvenience. Lizette -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:41 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: SR Policy I just got a reply to an SR asking for more information about the problem, then adding the text: Please also let me know what impact this issue has on your day to day business so we can understand the situation better. I look forward to your reply and clarification. Thanks! Am I to infer that IBM no longer believes in repairing defects simply because it's the right thing to do? This rather blurs the line between an SR and a requirement. -- gil -- 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: SR Policy
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:48:33 -0700, Lizette Koehler wrote: I have seen this question with most vendors. What is the impact to your environment. How critical is this to be fixed. I think it helps them to triage the problem and put it in the queue where it will get the correct attention. Is this a SHOP DOWN or a Minor inconvenience. There's a checkbox for that; I checked No and opened as SEV3. Tunnel vision. Imagine that Charles had reported his integer problem. But with a circumvention available it has no longer an impact on his day to day business. Does that justify IBM's leaving the pitfall for other customers to encounter, with anguish similar to Charles's? And for each customer, finding a circumvention becomes a one-time experience; no impact on day to day business. Ouch! Or is it IBM's responsibility to assess the potential distributed impact across the customer base? Defect-riddled software in the aggregate impacts day to day business even though the blame can not be laid on any single defect. -Original Message- From: Paul Gilmartin Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:41 PM I just got a reply to an SR asking for more information about the problem, then adding the text: Please also let me know what impact this issue has on your day to day business so we can understand the situation better. I look forward to your reply and clarification. Thanks! Am I to infer that IBM no longer believes in repairing defects simply because it's the right thing to do? This rather blurs the line between an SR and a requirement. -- gil -- 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: SR Policy
In 326064299181.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on 07/22/2013 at 03:41 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said: Am I to infer that IBM no longer believes in repairing defects simply because it's the right thing to do? I would infer that IBM wants to know whether it warrants an immediate fix or whether FIN is an acceptable resolution. FIN does not mean never, and I've even opened ETR's in which I suggested that FIN was appropriate. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2http://patriot.net/~shmuel We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
