My cat's breath smells like cat food. > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:18 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Day 2 Lessons Learned: GW6.5 to Exchange 2000 > > > Tl;dr. Will everyone just drop this discussion? We don't need > another 75 > e-mails on this today. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 8:17 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Day 2 Lessons Learned: GW6.5 to Exchange 2000 > > You do not know the specifics of their situation so I am not > sure why you > are so certain that the project was severly underscoped and underbid. > Rushed, yes. Underscoped and underbid, no. The scope is to > get them from > GroupWise 6.5 to Exchange 2000 and that is what is being delivered. > Underbid, again no. I can get a client of this size and much > larger migrated > with only spending 5 days or less on sight. I bring all my > own software and > tools, set them up, configure them and train them on their use. I can > actually install all the software and have all the processes > up and running > in about a day. Once you've done as many email migrations as > I have, you > tend to get your process worked out pretty thoroughly. So no, > I would not > characterize this project as underscoped or underbid. It's a > public school > system and so yes, they are concerned about costs, but I can deliver > everything they need, cover my costs with an acceptable > profit and they get > everything they asked for, so it has been scoped and bid correctly. > > As for the rest. Yes, everything that I say is my opinion. > And no, I do not > say that everyone that is an MVP is unethical. What I say is > that the act of > being an MVP is accepting compensation from a vendor and > hence not something > that professional IT people should engage in. MCSE? First, I > am not an MCSE > and would not advertise that fact if I were one. Yes, I do > hold certain > vendor certifications. The difference is that I PAY for these > certifications. I PAY Microsoft to take the test and then I > PAY Microsoft to > get their software. It is at a discount, but I still have to > pay for it. > With the MVP, you are not doing any PAYING. Microsoft is > PAYING you with a > title and gifts, not the other way around. I fail to see how > you can miss > this obvious distinction, but hey, whatever man. > > Yes, we disagree on this point. I am not sure why you feel > that I am being > closed-minded. I am close-minded because you cannot convince > me to believe > in your point of view? No, I have my point of view and I am quite > open-minded enough to understand your point of view. I do not have any > "bile" towards vendors although I do believe that they CAN > have a corrupting > influence. That's why the AMA is concerned over vendors (drug > companies) paying for clinical studies, etc. The AMA does not > want doctors > being paid to recommend particular prescriptions because it > is a conflict of > interest. The doctor is supposed to be looking out for the > patient's best > interests, not their own or the interests of a drug company > that is paying > them. This is all basic stuff. > > What I cannot understand is why people keep bringing this up. > My position on > this subject is well known and not likely to change. I have > given this issue > a lot of thought and this is my position on it. And we all know the > positions involved and all know who thinks what and all of > this conversation > is simply a rehash of the six or seven other times this > subject has come up. > So why keep bringing it up? Seems odd to me that a bunch of > people would > continually bring up the subject and then get mad at ME and > blame ME for > bringing it up. My position on this is well known and hasn't > changed in 8 > years. We disagree, great. No big thang. Let it go. > > If $1200 is 25% of a GW-Ex migration for 700 people then > the project > > was severely underscoped and underbid. It seems like the > customer has > > chosen cost over quality. C'est la vie. > > > > As for your positions, they are your opinion. Not fact. Not an > > opinion that many people agree with either. There are > folks on these > > lists with medical and jurisprudence and engineering and > MBA degrees > > who have been through all the "professional" certification > processes > > and few if any have come to your defense here. The ones I > know agree > > with me. =20 > > > > I don't think I've mischaracterized your position at all. You say > > that we are all unethical solely because of the vendor relationship > > and without respect to any other facts. You say you got an MCSE to > > get cheaper software. That's a recognition from the vendor with > > monetary value. I really don't see the difference. > > > > I've given a lot of thought to your arguments over the years and I > > respectfully disagree. IT is not the same as building > roads. Within > > the areas you call "professions" there are specializations. > Within IT > > there are specializations too. It just so happens that > those areas of > > /deep/ technical knowledge are sometimes on a particular product in > > addition to the specializations on generic process. There > really is > > no precedent stating that there is ipso facto > unprofessionalism or an > > issue with ethics. > > > > You say you got an MCSE to get cheaper software. That's a > recognition > > from the vendor with monetary value. I really don't see > the difference. > > > > I wish you could stop being so closed minded about this one > particular > > issue. The venom and bile with which you say the word "vendor" is > > also really puzzling. When you go to a chiropractor, > everything is a > > chiropractic problem with a chiropractic solution. When > you go to a > > heart surgeon, everything is a coronary problem with a coronary > > solution. Different you say? Not really. If they act > responsibly, > > they'll refer you somewhere else if what they have to offer > isn't what > > you need. In the IT space, if what you need is not what I have to > > offer, I'll refer you somewhere else. Saying that I'm more > likely to > > lie to you and try to mislead you than any random doctor with a > > specialty is absurd. On the other hand, if you want a specialist, > > getting one that has /deep/ technical knowledge is not a > bad idea and > > if they've been recognized by other experts and their peers > for that, > > all the better. > > > > Now you know my opinion on this subject. It's that you are > every bit > > as wrong on this topic as you think I am. Let's move on. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Greg Deckler > > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:02 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Day 2 Lessons Learned: GW6.5 to Exchange 2000 > > > > Well, if you're big enough to look past my views on MVP, I > think I can > > let it slide. Many thanks for your response. And, BTW, > $1200 is 25% of > > the budget for this project, that's a big chunk of change. > > > > P.S. And because I have been heckled to death on this issue, I feel > > the need to clarify because I believe you have mis-characterized my > > position on this. Regardless of whether or not MVP is the greatest > > thing since sliced bread and never, ever, in a million years caused > > anyone to every act unethically or fail to think for > themselves, it is > > still compensation from a vendor and hence something that IT > > professionals should not engage in. It is a slippery slope > and if IT > > is to ever achieve the status of a profession, something that will > > eventually have to be addressed. > > > > > Andy > > >=20 > > > Ps - please add appropriate grains of salt to the validity and > > >intellectual honesty of this answer. I have been accused > of being an > > >MVP, which may have compromised my ethics and ability to > think for > > >myself. > > >=20 > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-> bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchange&text_mo > > de=3D= > > & > > lang=3Denglish > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang= english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
