Richard, Stan, et. al.:

> > Gavin already responded with a comment to the effect that
> > that's what HP did this time.
> >
> > However, I think that's a bad idea.  If we can only vote for what
> > we can get, how will HP ever know how much we want things
> > they think they can't/wan't do?  It's important to be able to vote
> > on the full SIB ballot.
>
> While I appreciate your point, what difference does it really
> make if HP/CSY isn't going to do the enhancement anyway?
> In a way, it just makes them look bad for now listening.

While Stan makes some good points that I won't disagree with, on
balance considering all factors I hope most will feel that the overall
SIB process (i.e.:  *including* initial voting by individual SIGs)
came out "acceptably well" for this year...:  Yes, it was done in a
hurry; and perhaps some of the text / descriptions could have been
improved;  and above all (as Stan noted) for this year we "lost"
user feedback on a number of (IMO) important "High effort" items.

...  BUT:  Consider:   Out of all the people subscribed to 3000-L
and various Interex SIG lists (> 1200 or so, I would guess), only
** 273 ** took the time to vote...  That's (probably) less than 25
percent;  not what I would consider a very good voter turnout.....
Not totally disappointing either;  just not real good....  Even if you
allow, say, 10 percent for people who were on vacation, swamped
with work, etc. for the limited time the polls were open, an absolute
value of 273 voters out of the world-wide e3000 community does
not give me with a good warm fuzzy....

As others have noted, it seems plausible that one big reason the
absolute number of voters was low may be "delivery percentage"
over the last couple of years;  i.e.:  Not much.  *IFF* HP surprises
us on the upside (or at least does not "disappoint", ala Wall Street)
and delivers well on the "Top 11" that Jeff mentioned, then I hope
that can effectively be used as a major incentive next time around;
i.e:   We can say ~ "HP committed to implement 'd' out of the "Top
11" user requests on the 2001 SIB. Those that vote on the 2002
SIB will decide what is at the top of the implementation queue this
year.".  So I think at least for this one year it was acceptable to
make some effort to help HP improve its delivery percentage....
*AND*:

Remember that several people from CSY have recently been heard
to say that the SIB process is NOT the only vehicle for delivery of
new features / enhancements.  I'm prepared to wait to see the
final "combination" that comes out of the SIB track and the "other
vehicle" track(s);  and consider that combined result when judging
whether or not 2001 ends up being a "good year"...


Having said all that, I like Stan's proposed "ballot equalizer" idea;
with a maximum of 100 votes "normalized" to 10....  Or...:  maybe
it would just be simpler to go back to a straight $100 ballot...    :-)

...  And:  After (hopefully) establishing a good "benchmark" for SIB
item delivery this year, speaking just for myself I also support going
back to listing all "Top-whatever" items from each SIG on the 2002
SIB;  regardless of effort to implement.  If HP can't deliver a "High",
they can still take the next "Medium" or "Low".  I don't see the fact
that what they pick might not be in the "Top 10" as a trumping
argument against....  I definitely agree it is important not to lose
visibility on some of the "big" items.  Just two good examples:

(1)  TurboIMAGE Read-only DBLOCK mode (on the list for years).
(2)  Stan's idea for multiple LDEV's per spindle (new this year).

Ken Sletten

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *