Obviously, you're either sticking your finger all the way past the
second knuckle again or you've had too many facelifts....

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Day 2 Lessons Learned: GW6.5 to Exchange 2000


My brain tickles when I pick my nose 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 8:23 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Day 2 Lessons Learned: GW6.5 to Exchange 2000

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]


_________________________________________________________________
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]

Reply via email to