James, you hit the nail on the head. When the responses came back from IBM,
they came back from level 3. You will notice in my post I said:
My anger is not so much as an individual programmer as it is at an organization
that from time to time demonstrates that if they had 4 arms, the would not be
able to find a left one.
I understand who is at fault here. I'm beating up the only group I have a
contract to beat up. If you give me a "marketing" contract I will go beat up
marketers. But you sell me a support contract, so unforutnately, that is where
my beatings have to be administered. Sorry for the graphic analogy there, I
don't REALLY want to beat up NetView programmers. (Hm.... maybe celebrity
software boxing on Fox?)
Dead horse. See you next release.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com [mailto:owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com]On
Behalf Of James Shanks
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:55 PM
To: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Subject: RE: [nv-l] servmon and itmquery in NV 7.1.4
Scott --
Speaking as a long-time Level 3 engineer, I have to say that you are
beating up the wrong group. Level 3 fixes bugs. It does not design new
function. To add icons and all the rest that you want servmon to do
requires new design, and cross-component architecture reviews, inspections,
code walk-thrus and a complete verification cycle. Level 3 does not have
the resources for that. We aren't talking about fixing a null pointer, or
adding a new error message to code that has already passed muster once.
What the engineer who declined the APAR did was correct, according to our
mission. He passed the buck back to development, where it belonged. Lack
of function, especially new function, is theirs to fix. You would not
expect your washing machine mechanic to design and fabricate new parts on
his own, no matter how bright he was.
Level 3 was given the code the same way you were, as a done deal, alleged
to be functionally complete and thrown over the fence. We did not learn
about what it wouldn't do -- draw icons -- until the week it shipped.
Does the company have egg on its face over this? Yes, it does. But the
blame is a lot higher up than Level 3.
As for you not being offered a chance to be part of the beta, I'm sorry for
the misinformation and I will take that up with my source.
Regards,
James Shanks
Level 3 Support for Tivoli NetView for UNIX and Windows
Tivoli Software / IBM Software Group
"Barr, Scott"
<Scott_Barr@csgsy To:
<nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com>
stems.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: RE: [nv-l] servmon and
itmquery in NV 7.1.4
owner-nv-l@lists.
us.ibm.com
12/08/03 02:49 PM
Please respond to
nv-l
James I was never asked to join the beta. I am pathologically unable to
decline participaiting in betas. I cannot prevent signing non-disclosure
agreements, my hand magically signs them without my willing consent. I've
sought counseling. Believe me, I would have participated.
Now, I did participate in the switch analyzer beta and had to curtail my
efforts there because of poor timing of code release in conjunction with
large work projects arriving suddenly. If the person still running the beta
tests is Mark W, I've known him for at least 10 years and participated in
several NetView ESP's and betas (mainframe and otherwise), there should be
no question I would be available for beta testing.
I guess in response to your other question, it boils down to this. I see
NetView evolving and de-evolving all at the same time. It suffers from
schizophrenia driven by "marketing". Now don't get me wrong, the method
being used to survey people and get enhancement requests into the
developers hands is valid and acceptable. But I often wonder about the
desire to please everyone all the time. This feature was not ready. It has
all the earmarks. Documented features that aren't there, confusion in
support over what the feature is supposed to do, and the inability of level
3 to provide a spec that I can code the status application against - the
programmers can't tell me how to write code to interface with it. C'mon.
And frustration, anger, disappointment are all the result of a simple
response from level 3-- they said "no" to something that black letters on
white paper said should be there. At some point in time, software companies
become accountable. If it were a car, or a washing machine, or a child's
toy, it would NOT be acceptable to say the product does something it does
not. But in the software industry liberties are taken through oversight,
lack of planning and poor judgment. My anger is not so much as an
individual programmer as it is at an organization that from time to time
demonstrates that if they had 4 arms, the would not be able to find a left
one.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
[mailto:owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com]On Behalf Of James Shanks
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 9:04 AM
To: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Subject: RE: [nv-l] servmon and itmquery in NV 7.1.4
Jane, and Scott,
Help me out here, folks. I don't want to upset anyone nor rub salt
into a wound, but I am very puzzled.
Both of you, Jane and Scott, have expressed extreme disappointment
over what was provided as new function in NetView 7.1.4.
I'm sorry about that. I'll grant you that the new function is not
much. But I'm mystified as to why you thought there would be so much
more. This is just another NetView point release. Most of what got
in there was to support new events going to TEC. Now that NetView
is a component of TEC, that is it's primary job, so far as Tivoli
upper management is concerned. I think that NetView development
may have wished to provide more, but they have to negotiate for every
extra day to code something new that isn't mandated by a TEC
requirement.
So I've asked the question internally why you were both not included
in the 7.1.4 beta, so that two of our most valuable and vocal users
could have previewed the function, and provided vital feedback to
development. I was stunned to be told that both of you were
offered the opportunity to participate and that both of you turned it
down!
Is this true? Can you share with us why?
That would have been the ideal method for you to avoided all this
surprise and disappointment. And your comments, likes and dislikes,
would have gone all the way up the chain beyond NetView development
and TEC development to the folks who control the entire Tivoli
marketing strategy. You could have obtained a commitment from
development as to when your full needs would be met.
Why didn't you grab it?
James Shanks
Level 3 Support for Tivoli NetView for UNIX and Windows
Tivoli Software / IBM Software Group
|