[Fsfe-uk] Newham conspiracy

[Tom Coady]

I said the following on 10/01/2004 10:34:

> In any case there is another reason cited here 
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1151880 and discussed here:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040108165308873

I have written to Eddie to try to get to the bottom of this, and here is 
his answer which he has permitted me to post here:

Tom,

The best article about Newham is at:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/34724.html


Note some of the wording:

"council officers consider that to attempt a major migration at this
time would pose an unacceptable level of risk to services."

Which is what we recommended in our report.

Also quote from Richard Steel:

Newham's own trials of open source however predate the birth of the
OGC's trials, and are still going on. "We are continuing to use these
pilots to develop our knowledge of the potential of open source."

We were contracted by Newham to do a job which we did and which was well
received. It is now up to Newham to decide the way forward for their IT
strategy without the glare of publicity. It is not our role to discuss
this publicly.

The bruhaha surrounding Newham was because of IBM's and OGC's attempt to
get involved which resulted in Microsoft funding an alternative study by
Cap Jemini Ernst & Young.

I have just been onto the European Commission about the article on the
IDA web site.

Someone whose English is not up to scratch translated 'unacceptable
risk' to 'security risk.'

Have asked the IDA to change it.

Hope this helps

Eddie

to which I replied:

Hi Eddie

> Someone whose English is not up to scratch translated 'unacceptable 
> risk' to 'security risk.'

Aha - that certainly clears up part of the mystery!

I have taken another look at the register and I have found another quote 
from Mr Steel which does not make any sense to me:

"We were proposed to take part in a trial [of open source] with IBM," 
says Steel, but ultimately they have declined to do so.

Which appears to contradict the story that IBM was doing any proactive 
sales pitch, but in fact seemed to be turning away this business for 
some reason. I notice the later part is not in quotes, so it could be 
something constructed by the journalist.

Tom

To which I have not had any answer. I will post it if I get one.

Original question:

On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:03, Tom Coady wrote:

> > Hi Eddie
> >
> > Sorry to approach you this way, but I have been given your address to 
> > find out your opinion about the recent articles in the press concerning 
> > Newhams decision to ditch FLOSS alternatives to Microsoft since there 
> > are conflicting stories like these:
> >
> > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39118909,00.htm
> > http://www.silicon.com/software/os/0,39024651,39117624,00.htm
> > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1151880
> > which is discussed here:
> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040108165308873
> >
> > I would like to post your answer, if I may, to the FSFE-UK mailing list, 
> > to answer a thread that started here: 
> > http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-uk/2004-01/msg00058.html
> >
> > many thanks in anticipation
> > Tom
>