[2040] in Enterprise Print Delivery Team
Re: Queue Name
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Huxley, Bil)
Tue Dec 11 08:14:10 2001
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20011211071924.00b01208@po9.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 08:14:49 -0500
To: David F Lambert <LAMBERT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>,
"Lynne E. Durland" <durland@MIT.EDU>, R3-Print@MIT.EDU,
Enterprise Printing Delivery Project Team <printdel@MIT.EDU>
From: "Huxley, Bil" <huxley@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <200112102331.SAA14247@fort-point-station.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
Hi Dave,<br>
<br>
Everything you say here comes as a surprise to me, unless you mean to
suggest, say, a year from now. Implementing EP1 was a PrintDel
initiative based on a CAO request and OCP hardware funding and intended
as a pilot. Migrating EP1 to IPM was a PrintDel initiative.
Implementing a 'general' print queue which utilizes the IP60 printer was
an R3-Print request which seemed to be less than "enthusiastically
embraced" by PrintDel. You'll recall that we felt it would be
advantageous to implement this prior to implementing something as
complicated and specialized as the GL Summary Statement & DTR
printing. <br>
<br>
Now I think I'm hearing that you are considering substituting DC1 for EP1
(effectively). Please consider the fact that you could in fact do
this relatively transparently (to the desktop anyway) by simply telling
IPM to direct EP1 jobs to the IP60 rather than the HP 8100. Such a
switch may have an impact on job delivery/availability and/or the look of
the output and those are certainly important considerations, but those
are implicit in your suggestion anyway.<br>
<br>
We (CAO) just made a nontrivial investment to install KLP on all the
CAO-Reporting desktops then went through again to install the
EP1-IPM queue. Each time this kind of work needs to be done it
requires shutting down the User's applications and logging them off in
order to log in as an administrator - it's disruptive to folk's daily
work and responsibilities even if you don't consider the efforts of
CAOTech.<br>
<br>
Please consider my original question :) If 'EP' (Enterprise
Printing) is considered an inadequate naming convention, why wasn't this
addressed or at least discussed in conjunction with very, very recent EP1
migration? I'm confused if y'all consider this a big issue for EP60
and a non-issue for EP1. I also do not understand why R3-Print was
not informed of this issue until I asked why EP60 wasn't mentioned in
your IT-Delivery report.<br>
<br>
I'd also like to offer a perception that IS may not run the only
"Data Center" at MIT. This names assumes IS (it reflects
an IS-centric point of view, if you would).<br>
<br>
John Curry's five themes come to mind as I make this inquiry again :)
<dl><font size=3>
<dd>Client Orientation (and working together to streamline processes)
<dd>Collaboration (boundary blind processes and open sharing of common
information
<dd>Sustainability (rising to higher standards)
<dd>Accountability (clarity or roles and responsibilities)
<dd>Professionalism (best practices in many areas)<br>
<br>
</font>
</dl>You mentioned 'forms'. As far as I know, the current EP1
service does not provide for forms or stock (three hole punch only I
believe). I've asked before if IPM will support flash forms but
never got an answer. Clearly there is some forms (stock) handling
for IPM because you've defined queues with names like 'Central-Letter',
'Central-3hole' and 'Central-Archive' (Wow there are 31
"printers" defined on Pillage currently!). <br>
<br>
My apologies if I haven't been listening and that's the cause of my
confusion and lack of understanding :)<br>
Bil<br>
<br>
At 12/10/2001 06:20 PM -0500, David F Lambert wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Hi Bil,<br>
<br>
Actually we may want to eliminate EP1 altogether at some point.
Our<br>
primary goal initially for EP1 was to move it as transparently as
possible<br>
from CAO's perspective. Since we can handle PS output on the IP60
printers,<br>
we could just point output there with new or existing logical
destination/<br>
queue names. I think it makes sense to minimize and/or
eliminate<br>
different queues which basically do the same thing (forms, handling,
etc.)<br>
<br>
Some duplication is required now due to accommodating SAP's
inability<br>
to use klpr. So, at some point you can expect EP1's name to change
or<br>
be replaced with a queue which performs similarly.<br>
<br>
Hope that helps...<br>
<br>
-Dave<br>
<br>
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:04:35 -0500 Bil said:<br>
>Hi,<br>
><br>
>Doesn't this imply that you would want to rename EP1 too?<br>
><br>
>Confused,<br>
> Bil<br>
><br>
>At 12/10/2001 01:47 PM -0500, Lynne E. Durland wrote:<br>
>>Greetings,<br>
>><br>
>>Dave Lambert and Theresa met briefly last week to discuss the
name<br>
>>EP60/EP62 for the new general queue for SAP central
printing. Dave<br>
>>expressed concern that EP60 was not as descriptive as it
might<br>
>>be. Theresa agreed to entertain other proposed names.
In our printdel<br>
>>this morning we came up with DC1 and DC12 for the names.
The DC standing<br>
>>for Data Center. Our current goal is to get this new queue
implemented by<br>
>>Friday.<br>
>><br>
>>Please let un know if the proposed new name is acceptable.<br>
>><br>
>>Thanks<br>
>><br>
>>Lynne<br>
>>Lynne E. Durland<br>
>>Information Systems<br>
>>Database Services<br>
>>W91-109<br>
>>O: 617-258-5857<br>
>>C: 617-293-8091<br>
>>H: KB1FEM<br>
>><br>
>>"When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but
often we look so<br>
>>long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been
opened<br>
>>for us."<br>
>><br>
>>
--Helen Keller<br>
><br>
> </blockquote><br>
</html>
