[4] in Tooltime
Mtg notes from 1/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barbara Goguen)
Wed Jan 24 14:59:35 1996
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 14:59:29 -0500
To: tooltime-mtg@menelaus.LOCAL
From: goguen@MIT.EDU (Barbara Goguen)
>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 17:36:40 EST
>From: goguen@MIT.EDU (Barbara Goguen)
>To: tooltime@MIT.EDU
>Subject: Mtg notes from 1/4
>
>Late, but for the record...
>---------------------------
>
>Attending: Jim Repa, Lynne Sousa, Kim Carney, Al Willis, Ray
>Charboneau, Peter Lee, Carla Fermann, Barbara Goguen
>
>1. Remedy status
>Kim gave us an update on kerberos work-around. Need to know more about
>their log-in sequence, encryption algorythm, how usernames and password
>are linked to licenses. Talked about conference call scheduled for next
>day between Remedy and us. (Jim, Scott Thorne, Ted T'so, Kim, Lynne,
>Steve Wade Neiterman)
>
>2. Reinvestigate other tools
>Narrowed list down to Scopus, Vantive, and viability of building
>something in-house. Vantive may be ruled out early if they have neither
>Kerberos nor SQL*Net/SNS solution. Need to have at least some
>preliminary conversations with those that would be able to help us
>determine viability/timeline for building in-house (Wade, Tom Rosato).
>
>Costs are one consideration. Remedy was going to cost us roughly
>$75,000, not including the olc custom work, plus 10-15% maintenance
>costs.
>
>Time is another consideration. Lynne estimated that it would take 6-12
>weeks once we got a tool in house to get it up and running for
>implementation.
>
>If we go with a solution involving SQL*Net/SNS rather than Kerberos, the
>problem of name space management still exists. This is less of a
>problem if we are only talking of consultants running client software
>such as would be the case if we rely on Web interface for customers to
>use.
>
>Need to think about requirements we are really looking to meet. Is
>there anything we are willing to let go of? After brief discussion, it
>didn't look as though we could let go of the requirement that something
>run on all 3 platforms without making some group of consultants' jobs
>significantly less pleasant.
>
>Maybe we could let go of the idea that whatever we go with needs to meet
>a variety of needs across campus, thus becoming an infrastructure issue.
>There seemed to be consensus on the idea that identifying a tool that
>meets the help needs should take priority.
>
>Action items
>------------
>Establish list and discuss meeting to facilitate team work - Barbara
>Contact Scopus and Vantive about beginning re-evaluation - Barbara
>Coordinate conference call with Remedy - Kim
>Begin discussion regarding viability of building in-house - Barbara
>
>Meeting Times
>-------------
>Regular meeting time will be Tuesdays, 10-11, in 11-124A.
>
-barbara
goguen@mit.edu
617-253-6135
