Re: Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-30 Thread Huegel, Thomas
, 2008 7:19 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Not in Plan response to requirements Sometimes a requirement does not pass Go or collect $200 and is rejected or accepted outright. Of course, business needs change all the time, so a Rejection or Acceptance is no guarantee

Re: OT (humor): Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-30 Thread Stracka, James (GTI)
You can watch Burn Notice when it comes back. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Nielsen Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:39 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: OT (humor): Not in Plan response to requirements

OT (humor): Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-30 Thread Brian Nielsen
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:58:07 -0500, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to grow my virtual server farm by 15% every 6 months, as measured by billions of microthingies per fortnight, but there is no Golden Widget that allows me to frangle a self-supporting side-bender efficiently. Has

Re: OT (humor): Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-30 Thread Alan Altmark
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 10:40 EST, Brian Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried reversing the polarity but, despite all the Star Trek I've watched, it didn't help. Perhaps I should have watched some MacGyver. Ah, a Classics man. Reversing the polarity is s Old School; it's not

Re: OT (humor): Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-30 Thread Tony Thigpen
Did you try a sonic screwdriver? Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: Brian Nielsen Sent: 01/30/2008 10:39 AM On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:58:07 -0500, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to grow my virtual server farm by 15% every 6 months, as measured by billions of

Re: OT (humor): Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-30 Thread Gregg C Levine
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:29 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: OT (humor): Not in Plan response to requirements On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 10:40 EST, Brian Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried reversing the polarity

Re: OT (humor): Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-30 Thread O'Brien, Dennis L
Has this capability been anounced yet? We could really use that. I tried reversing the polarity but, despite all the Star Trek I've watched, it didn't help. Perhaps I should have watched some MacGyver. Brian Nielsen Perhaps you've run into a case that's covered by the maxim that was posted

Re: OT (humor): Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-30 Thread pfa
, especially these days! Ah, where is my hydrosolator when I need it! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 01/30/2008 01:29 PM Please respond to IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: OT (humor): Not in Plan response to requirements On Wednesday

Re: OT (humor): Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-30 Thread McKown, John
-Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Thigpen Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:04 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: OT (humor): Not in Plan response to requirements Did you try a sonic screwdriver

Re: Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-29 Thread Rob van der Heij
On Jan 29, 2008 9:45 PM, Huegel, Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may be a requirement to ask IBM to prepare better 'rejection documentation'. 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

Re: Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-29 Thread Alan Altmark
On Tuesday, 01/29/2008 at 03:24 EST, David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After having written up a lot of the requirements discussed here and submitting them through a recognized user group, I received a number of rejection notices with a reason of ?not in plan?. Could someone at IBM

Re: Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-29 Thread Huegel, Thomas
It may be a requirement to ask IBM to prepare better 'rejection documentation'. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Boyes Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:22 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Not in Plan response

Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-29 Thread David Boyes
After having written up a lot of the requirements discussed here and submitting them through a recognized user group, I received a number of rejection notices with a reason of not in plan. Could someone at IBM explain this reason a little further? I thought the point of user requirements was

Re: Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-29 Thread David Boyes
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

Re: Not in Plan response to requirements

2008-01-29 Thread David Boyes
Sometimes a requirement does not pass Go or collect $200 and is rejected or accepted outright. Of course, business needs change all the time, so a Rejection or Acceptance is no guarantee that it will never see the light of day or that it will be in release n+1. But remember that our