## On 2002-11-30 15:41 +0100 Jim Segrave typed:
JS>
JS> I find the reactions on this mailing list disturbing, to say the
JS> least. The rush to judgement about what happened appears to be based
JS> on speculation and assumptions about how this large facility was run,
JS> managed and staffed.
JS>
JS> As far as I can see, the known facts are:
JS>
JS> There was an oversize layer 2 network and it broke.
JS> It was hard to repair.
JS> The CTO is a physician on the hospital board who, on first sight,
JS> appears to have considerable qualifications in the IT area.
I agree except that it's not CTO but rather the CIO
JS>
JS> The unknowns are:
[snipped for brevity]
Many unknowns - no argument here
JS>
JS>
JS> But people are speculating with no knowledge of the
JS> actual organisation, history, planning, what risk assesment had or had
JS> not been done, or any other information excpet guesses and prejudices
JS> about what they think might have happened and an apparent assumption
JS> that this is all the result of turning over a large enterprise network
JS> to a jumped up physician whose only qualification was running a couple
JS> of Linux boxes on a home network. None of the above unknown issues
JS> have been addressed anywhere.
## On 2002-11-29 23:43 +0200 I typed:
RS>
RS>
RS> Are you suggesting that a CIO at a "huge hospital"(or any other enterprise)
RS> Needs to be an expert at LAN/WAN networking, Systems, DBA & Security
RS> Rather than a management expert that has a good grasp of the basic IT
RS> issues and understands the core business needs of the enterprise ?
RS>
Can you please indicate the assumptions/speculations in the above question?
JS> I hope the posters never pull jury service, as there seems to be a
JS> complete disregard for the idea of gathering facts before passing
JS> judgement.
JS>
1) You seem to imply *all* previous posters in this thread
(which is why I'm responding to you in public)
2) IMHO you should try having a good long look in a mirror ;-)
--
Rafi