Folks,
I have been following these "threads" for the past couple of days and I have
the following comments:
1) I think this information, related to the "fitness" of a beta product,
should be moved to the forum, where these comments were requested to be
sent. It would simplify the gathering of information for all parties.
Since at this point they will need to "search" various areas before
understanding if they have all of the information. In an effort to
"practice what I am suggesting", all other comments related to this subject
will be posted into the forum related to the beta testing of the mail
system.
2) I happen to agree with the points that were mentioned by Lawrence -
Lawrence, I hope that I do "justice" to your point of view, if not, please
call or send me a note, so that I might clarify on the forum. Back to the
topic - in summary - we need to have a cross MSU University common system,
which supports all parties and doesn't require individual units to manage or
maintain aspects of that system. This same system needs the flexibility to
support collaboration with "entities (businesses, communities, other
universities) while maintaining the necessary security (personal,
information and hacking) and protections for intellectual property.
In addition to those requirements, we also need to consider who is being
held accountable for systems that don't meet the points mentioned above. As
an example - if we were to have a situation where systems were compromised,
who would be held accountable, if it was determined to be on a server mail
system, which was locally hosted by a specific university unit?
I don't know the answer to that question and it isn't central to the issue
of the beta testing of the mail system, however it is a question that should
be addressed in a different forum or thread.
3) Back to the beta testing of the system. I would recommend the following:
a) Compare the functionality to the defined requirements
b) Request non-IT people to test the functionality (use the users that
are most interested in a new system and let them tell you if it is meeting
the need.
c) If determining those users isn't possible, then create some focus
groups - again from non-IT people, so you can gain the feedback you are
requesting
d) Have a series of test cases, which would map back to the requirements
and then determine if they "pass or fail"
e) Complete the testing and then determine the final course of action.
4) Comments on the system, as I have reviewed it to date:
a) Synching of calendars doesn't function as defined - if a user were to
create an appointment on a PDA device and then the support staff were to
create an appointment - synching would "replace" the appointments - which
would result in the lose of data for the user. Per the HORDE site, this is
a known issue that isn't expected to be addressed until sometime in 2009.
For my organization this is a "show stopper", since this is basic
functionality which is available in many products today.
b) Support for various PDAs/ phones - I didn't see any support for those
items
c) The help isn't up and running, so I was not able to locate any
material that would address these issues. I needed to "search" the HORDE
site to determine if it was or was not part of the planned installation.
d) Does this have the ability to create "resources", which is something
that I am familiar with from an exchange and lotus notes type mail system?
Again, this would be a show stopper for my organization as we have the need
to support a complex and share those resources with five other units who are
involved with supporting those resources (in this case we need to coordinate
with the following - the college, Residential Life, Dining Services,
Facilities and Housing Operations).
e) Also, I have not "tested" the system much yet, however here are two
other requirements, which are needed by my users.
i) Ability to "easily" attach files and have an acceptable limit
(10meg) for the attachments.
ii) Have the ability to easily create groups or lists and then have
them available to others.
I look forward to your comments in the forum.
http://forums.msu.edu/showthread.php?t=122
Respectfully,
Jeanne
On 9/18/08 8:58 AMGMT-04:00, "Steve Devine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Gwen Pearson wrote:
>> Um. Isn't it a breach of the MSU privacy policy to report what a user
>> has accessed?
>>
>> (even if it is amusing?)
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Gwen
>>
>>
> Probably .. my apologies to all, Mr Scott included. I assumed he had
> accessed some MSU email system at some time yesterday and so therefore
> it was no longer a private manner. Also not to put too fine a point on
> it but I revealed the absence of access. Regardless, your point is a
> good one Gwen again I apologize.
> /sd
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Steven Devine <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: September 18, 2008 8:25:59 AM GMT-04:00
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [MSUNAG] Some thoughts about a new email system for MSU
>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> You had quite the rant yesterday about our failure to provide up to
>>> date technology for the MSU community. The posting that started this
>>> thread was a comment by Lawrence Bates about our new web based email
>>> system: https://beta.mail.msu.edu
>>> I was interested in seeing if you had encountered any adverse issues
>>> while using this new system (after all it is beta). So I looked for
>>> entries in our various logs for what may have happened to you to
>>> trigger such a venomous response.
>>> Turns out Mr Scott I see no log entries for your netid within the new
>>> system. None at all.
>>> Given this data it appears to me as if you have passed a pretty
>>> severe judgment about a product you have yet to try.
>>>
>>> Steve Devine
>>>
>>
>
--
Jeanne G. Carey, PMP
Michigan State University
Residential College in the Arts and Humanities (RCAH)
C210B Snyder
East Lansing, MI 48825
Phone +517-884-6001
Fax: +517-884-1244
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: rcah.msu.edu
GMT-4
