And whatever happens or is said, its important to remember these guys are
public servants and almost certainly try to do the best job they can.
On Sunday 07 July 2002 23:11, you wrote:
> Am 07. Jul, 2002 schwätzte Robert Bushman so:
> > No worries, though I do have to finish relatively soon.
>
> Same here. I'm trying to pass out early enough to wake up early enough to
> be on time.
>
> > I see these as distinct - Competitive Pricing is how
> > it's hurting them today, Dependancy Spiral is how it
> > is going to hurt them more tomorrow. The solution is
> > the same, but that's the solution I tried to fit
> > in everywhere.
>
> Yeah, once they're seperated, it makes more sense. When they were right
> after one another, it seemed like a repeat because the end game came out
> the same.
>
> > I think this angle made some sense with this
> > question at the end of the list. Now that I've
> > moved it to the beginning, where we're still hoping
> > for collaboration, I think the risk is too high.
> > If I were Allsing, I would take this as in implication
> > that I broke the rules 5 years ago and get offended.
>
> Not at all what I'm trying to imply. In fact, after your positioning
> showing that going for a homogonous environment in 1997 wasn't necessarily
> a bad thing, we want to see what has changed since then. Are they still
> requiring a single vendor for all contracts?
>
> It's been 5 years. Needs change, the RFP should have changed as well. We,
> as citizens, need to see the original and subsequent RFPs to understand the
> decisions Maricopa County has made. Unlike Paul and Lin Thatcher, Paul's
> boss, we aren't intimately familiar with the history of Maricopa County's
> computer infrastructure.
>
> > As I see it, the outcomes are:
> >
> > 1. Maricopa was honest in 1997 - they resent the implication
> > and go on the defensive, and we've gained nothing.
> >
> > 2. Maricopa scammed in 1997 - they resent the implication
> > and get really angry that we're on the trail. The rest
> > of the meeting is soured - zero chance of collaboration.
> > Maybe we discover some unethical practices, but there
> > will be future opportunities for that if the meeting
> > doesn't go well.
>
> I think, then, we need to consider the wording to not imply that we think
> they've done something wrong. That is something I don't want to imply. If
> they had certainly Sun, Novell, Apple, Netscape/AOL, and IBM would've
> already brought it up.
>
> We might believe that the RFPs haven't represented our needs as citizens,
> but I'm more interested in knowing how they see the world. The RFP is a
> document that outlines that view. It's also a guide as to how we can couch
> our proposals for assistance.
>
> Do the proposals ask for:
>
> x computers?
> x computers with Microsoft Office?
> x computers that have office suites?
> x computers that have office suites compatable with Microsoft office?
> x computers that can r/w .doc format?
> x computers that can r/w documentation?
> etc.
>
> Again, I suggest we don't be confrontational. At the same time we need
> information so we can understand the processes they have and need to be
> firm about getting that info.
>
> ciao,
>
> der.hans
(text/plain)