--- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Okay hands up I think its me (again). I'm not doing it to pretend to be > anonymous, I just don't have the auto-pilot turned on.
When conducting ongoing battles, auto-pilots can be dangerous.... > > Its an interesting SLA point though that many SLAs are "soft" in the world > of business but that IT tends to only have the ability to encode "hard" > SLAs. Certainly some companies use IT to get rid of unwanted soft SLAs but > equally there need to be occasions where the SLA can be bent automatically > based on rules, events, conditions and previous behaviour. So in the case > below a allow for resubmission approach that enabled a "soft" rejection to > be established would be an interesting challenge. I waste a lot of time sending back messages due to poor "usergroup governance". They then usually get resubmitted and approved. I don't wish to be overly pedantic (although it does come to me naturally...) - it is just that I can make so many exceptions (soft SLA enforcement) before standards start to drop to the level of those low-grade, semi-literate, socially challenged techy Groups. Strangely enough I have to reject very few messages due to abuse or other signs of emotional loss of control. That is because most of you are grown up and are aware that many of your respected peers read your jottings - I really appreciate the effort and quality of work that the contributors put into this Group. Steven, you make an interesting point about the softness of SLAs. By turning over the issue to IT is not the business management merely hiding behind an update of that old excuse which is now hopefully considered outmoded, "it's not our fault the computer system is down."? > > Steve "Hanging my head in shame" Jones Mark, take note... You might get a pint out of him. Gervas > > On 30/07/07, Gervas Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Against my better judgement I have just approved an unsigned message > > from a regular contributor. Could you please all remember to put your > > name at the end of your messages! I know most of you are very > > conscientious in this regard, but I don't want this Group degenerating > > into one of those semi-articulate fora where contributors think that > > the illusion of anonymity gives them licence to write crap - that is > > the Moderator's privilege in this Group :) > > > > Gervas > > Moderator > > > > > > >
