Hi all, I've mashed up all our ideas and suggestions and have something rather presentable here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/fsm-City-of-Casey Please don't leave comments as this is what we will be sending, but do make any improvements that you can see or corrections you can make. I'll take a "late lunch" and try and send this about 3~4pm ... until then improve away (checking that all the links work and point to the desired pages is something easy to do and yet to be done, also making the language consistent like always using FOSS or Free an Open Source Software would be neat) Thanks to everyone who chipped in research, suggested alternatives, examples and words in general :D ~~ Ben M.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 06:01:52 +1000 Ben M <PuZZleDucK+softwarefreedom@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I've mashed up all our ideas and suggestions and have something rather presentable here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/fsm-City-of-Casey
Please don't leave comments as this is what we will be sending, but do make any improvements that you can see or corrections you can make. I'll take a "late lunch" and try and send this about 3~4pm ... until then improve away (checking that all the links work and point to the desired pages is something easy to do and yet to be done, also making the language consistent like always using FOSS or Free an Open Source Software would be neat)
Thanks to everyone who chipped in research, suggested alternatives, examples and words in general :D
That looks great, thanks for putting it all together. I reckon that it's ready to send off. Oh, and I just got a response from Council about what "Business process software purchases" is. Unfortunately, it doesn't make any sense: Casey will be undertaking market testing to procure a business process management software tool to support the development of more efficient and effective processes aimed at delivering a better customer experience and increasing productivity. This will support the Lean business improvement methodology that is being introduced to the organisation.
Hi, On 21/06/2016 6:01 AM, Ben M wrote:
I've mashed up all our ideas and suggestions and have something rather presentable here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/fsm-City-of-Casey
Some great work, reading through it now. Just a couple of quick points. - local councils are not local government - perhaps change "in relation to government" to "in relation to governance of the people" - licensing - volume licensing from Micro$oft often requires EVERY single, possible user to be included in the license count. - therefore, I am not sure how it can be claimed that you can easily lessen license cost, even if some employees are /sometimes/ excludable from the license count. It is normal for server users to need CALs (client access licenses), there may be situations where users can't be excluded if the license is needed at all. I hate M$ licensing very much, not only is it very costly, but it is often confusing. Still reading through, but thought it might be best to get people thinking about the above before the deadline arrives. Is the deadline actually close of business today? Cheers A.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:22:28 +1000 Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
Hi,
On 21/06/2016 6:01 AM, Ben M wrote:
I've mashed up all our ideas and suggestions and have something rather presentable here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/fsm-City-of-Casey
Some great work, reading through it now.
Just a couple of quick points.
- local councils are not local government - perhaps change "in relation to government" to "in relation to governance of the people"
Local councils are local government. They are created under the Local Government Act 1989. (The only place where I have seen the above argument is on a "sovereign citizen"-type website trying to argue that local government is unconstitutional. In any case, the courts do not recognise such a distinction, and neither should we.)
- licensing - volume licensing from Micro$oft often requires EVERY single, possible user to be included in the license count. - therefore, I am not sure how it can be claimed that you can easily lessen license cost, even if some employees are /sometimes/ excludable from the license count. It is normal for server users to need CALs (client access licenses), there may be situations where users can't be excluded if the license is needed at all. I hate M$ licensing very much, not only is it very costly, but it is often confusing.
I'm not sure how MS licensing works in detail, so hopefully someone else will have more information. But if, say, one of Council's offices has migrated to Linux and the rest of Council's offices are still stuck with MS, then surely the Linux users would be excluded from the count?
Still reading through, but thought it might be best to get people thinking about the above before the deadline arrives. Is the deadline actually close of business today?
Yes, unfortunately. We've got less than 3 hours left, so there isn't much time.
On 21/06/2016 2:01 PM, Riley Baird wrote:
Local councils are local government. They are created under the Local Government Act 1989. (The only place where I have seen the above argument is on a "sovereign citizen"-type website trying to argue that local government is unconstitutional. In any case, the courts do not recognise such a distinction, and neither should we.)
If that is true and actually legally correct, then why do they want to bring in a constitutional change to "recognise local government". It isn't true and some would even argue that the Victorian state legislation on this matter is illegal.
I'm not sure how MS licensing works in detail, so hopefully someone else will have more information. But if, say, one of Council's offices has migrated to Linux and the rest of Council's offices are still stuck with MS, then surely the Linux users would be excluded from the count?
That would depend on whether or not they have a need to use remote desktop services; any that do, then there is a requirement that they be included as MS Office users.... typically, not sure how to legally get around that problem other than to declare those users unable to use MS Office, but that might not be enough; simply the fact that they connect to a Windows Server might be enough to screw you over on license. Kind Regards AndrewM
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:22:28 +1000 Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
Hi,
On 21/06/2016 6:01 AM, Ben M wrote:
I've mashed up all our ideas and suggestions and have something rather presentable here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/fsm-City-of-Casey
Some great work, reading through it now.
Just a couple of quick points.
- local councils are not local government - perhaps change "in relation to government" to "in relation to governance of the people"
Local councils are local government. They are created under the Local Government Act 1989. (The only place where I have seen the above argument is on a "sovereign citizen"-type website trying to argue that local government is unconstitutional. In any case, the courts do not recognise such a distinction, and neither should we.)
- licensing - volume licensing from Micro$oft often requires EVERY single, possible user to be included in the license count. - therefore, I am not sure how it can be claimed that you can easily lessen license cost, even if some employees are /sometimes/ excludable from the license count. It is normal for server users to need CALs (client access licenses), there may be situations where users can't be excluded if the license is needed at all. I hate M$ licensing very much, not only is it very costly, but it is often confusing.
I'm not sure how MS licensing works in detail, so hopefully someone else will have more information. But if, say, one of Council's offices has migrated to Linux and the rest of Council's offices are still stuck with MS, then surely the Linux users would be excluded from the count?
Still reading through, but thought it might be best to get people thinking about the above before the deadline arrives. Is the deadline actually close of business today?
Yes, unfortunately. We've got less than 3 hours left, so there isn't much time.
participants (3)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Ben M -
Riley Baird