|
I agree that the request to not store queries in QGPL is not unreasonable. (Enough negatives in that sentence?) I too am a firm believer that QGPL should be an IBM-only library. The problem with moving the queries to a secured library and making the users call me to get them back is that is wastes time, both mine and the users. Also, if you have users that work at odd hours you don't want to be "restoring" queries at 3AM. Just my 2 cents. -Walden -----Original Message----- From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com [mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Terry Herrin Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 2:57 PM To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com Subject: Re: NO queries in QGPL please!! Walden Leverich wrote: >While I agree that this does not stop users from putting queries in the QGPL >library, I think the delete approach is too harsh. I'm one that believes >that the system belongs to the users. We (IT, IS, MIS, DP, whatever) are >just here to act as enablers for the users. I agree. However, as managers of the system we have the right to impose certain reasonable rules that the users should be required to follow. Asking that queries not be placed in QGPL is not an unreasonable request, in my opinion. >I don't know why the original request was made to not store queries in the >QGPL library, but I would guess that there was a desire to keep the library >"pure" to avoid any possible upgrade problems. ( Yes, I know there shouldn't >be any, but if I don't use the lib I know there will be no problems.) By >moving the queries into the correct library I allow the users to keep their >hard work and still accomplish my goal. Besides, after a couple of weeks of >saving to QGPL and having to remember that the query was then moved to >library xxx the users will simply start using library xxx. If the end goal is to keep QGPL base IBM only, then moving the queries would definitely accomplish that goal. I wouldn't count on the users to stop saving to QGPL though, especially since they know it doesn't matter if they do so. One compromise here would be to move the queries to a library the users cannot access. A "deleted" query would not be lost, but the users would have to call and ask that their query be restored to their work library. By requiring the user to call and ask, it would discourage them from using QGPL. It would also give the manager the opportunity to remind the user that what he/she did was wrong. The work isn't lost, but having to call and ask to get it back is a pain compared to just not saving to QGPL, especially if you get a verbal slap on the wrist when you do so. And as someone else here has already suggested, a consultant I believe <g>, a nominal charge could be levied for each "restore". <grin> Terry therrin@isaac.net +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +--- +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.