[406] in Project_DB
Re: Projects by Practice
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Barker)
Wed Dec 23 22:51:51 1998
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 22:38:15 -0500
To: dbaron@MIT.EDU (Dennis Baron)
From: Mike Barker <mbarker@MIT.EDU>
Cc: itlt@MIT.EDU, project-db@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <199812232325.SAA07596@dbaron.MIT.EDU>
Just for clarification:
Commons was requested by Susan Minai-Azary.
OFFICE-MR was requested by Bob Ferrara.
The "NONE" entry in a Practice field indicates no one has selected a
practice for the project.
The "adhoc" process appears to be an artifact of providing Jeff Schiller
with the privileges of a process director. However, I found it useful when
entering the five-year plan and apparently the MIT blue pages online also
decided to use this process.
I suggest that on the Web pages, OFFICE-MR be identified as designating
Management Reporting projects. The Commons may be identified as designating
IS projects for the infrastructure.
The best way to remove the "NONE" entries may be for the practice directors
to review such entries and modify the projects.
Although accidental, the adhoc process does provide a "home" for projects
which don't seem to fit in one of the five processes. We may want to
consider another name, such as "special".
Mike
At 06:25 PM 12/23/98 -0500, Dennis Baron wrote:
:)
:)I think the following page is confusing:
:)
:) http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/i/is/projects/index.html
:)
:)>Projects by practice --
:)> Academic Computing,
:)> Office Computing,
:)> Voice, Data and Image Networking,
:)> Office-MR ,
:)> Commons
:)
:)There is enough confusion about practices but listing "Office-MR" and
:)"Commons" as I/T Practices just adds to it. There has to be a better way of
:)presenting this on our web pages.
:)
:)I also notice that there is an "adhoc" Process and a "NONE" Practice in the
:)database... can somebody think about this and come up with something that is
a
:)little less confusing?
:)
:)Thanks. Dennis
:)
