GroupWise or GroupWoes? I'll take a "yes" on the latter. Right: no postbox access again today, although I suspect this is because of the "innovations" around password software.

I ignored the academic association letter to the VC because I felt that the tone was over the top, and the suggestions seemed to lack practical validity - but it was hard not to be sympathetic toward the sentiment. I've only been at OU(tm) for 2 years now, and I really can't think of a term in which GW has worked well.  If OU(tm) was going to go the route of an enterprise mail handler, why not go via MS Exchange? Was it cost related? I would guess that with the constant downtime and repairs for GW, any saving has been compromised if not lost. If it was to avoid MS software (an understandable and laudable aim), going Novell was not really a big leap in the right direction, now was it? Right now we (as users, the people who are the university) probably hate GW almost as much as the current ITS staff who spend weekends and late nights trying to keep that thing going. 

How about time for a rethink on a number of issues: ISA (good in theory, crappy in application); password updater (not too promising so far); GroupWoes? (time to delete; re-format); Communication (really letting people know through Faculty presentations etc) about the Website policy and planning (I hear that WebDav is falling over, and all sites on it will die when it does, and I admit to being a tad suspicious about how this has crept up so silently)? One size-fits all websites are all the rage - BUT, that means the webunit must be adequately staffed, Faculties and Departments will need people trained and given the time to update CMS data, and ideally, we should all actually know what;s going on - leak down's via HoD's are a leak-poor way of communicating this information to us poor sods who try and manage departmental websites because no-one else will.

But of these all, the biggest worry is GroupWoes. Do we really need it? For example: How much does the GW calender really get used (as distinct from having stuff put on it)? Even given the good reason for avoiding MS Exchange (probabaly cost and, well, the Evil Empire), the question is how much real use GW's so-called utility is providing? Does any one know (no, I don't mean management-speak, I mean really know)? 'Cos, if, as I suspect, people mostly use the calandar for their own use (i.e. largely ignore meeting notices), than why not go the much cheaper route of Mozilla + Thunderbird and its calendar - all Open Source - which permits changing of emails into calendar entries, and so permits emailed notification? Yes, admin and secretarial staff staff can't check HOD and Dean's e-calendars (at least when I last checked but that was 2 years ago), but really, how much is this used (especially when the damn thing is down so much anyway)?

I'm not sure how using Google's range of options would work - are there bandwidth implications, which I would suspect? Google is NOT innocent either, so lets not be naive about that. Certainly their calendar is a great collaboration tool, but their email is less than secure (most SA banks, for instance, won't permit a GMail account for internet banking) because of their bot search system linked to their advertising - at least in their common GMail - perhaps institutional special arrangements will omit this?

Whatever - another DVC post is looming DVC (Email communications).... Oh, and welcome and good luck to the new Director of ITS. Really. We all depend on that good luck.