I think Paul's posting and problem are worthy of more of our attention than
the pissing contest between Laurie and I. I quote, below....
On Friday 29 October 2004 14:08, Adrian Midgley wrote:
>
> > > I cannot for the life of me work out why part of you would wish to be
> > > the 'lead' on this project. Do you know?
> > > Bruce
>
> On Friday 29 October 2004 09:44, paul bromley wrote:
> > I am not saying that I am Allan - a very hot potatoe that will be
> > difficult to convince myself of the benefits, let alone my partners and
> > other colleagues. I am going to the initial meeting just to see what is
> > happening. I am just amazed that there is no funding for this (or maybe I
> > am not!).
>
> A reason to be involved is so that the project is actually designed right
> and ends up usable.
>
> THis would be valuable work.
>
> It may be that the profession should pay for it, as a cost of business, in
> order to fend off the usual quality of specification, design and
> implementation we find in politically driven NHS IT, and reduce the
> opportunities for sabotage or mistake to merely the operation of it.
>
> Where they are huge - ask youself why hospitals have not done this ages
> before ....
>
> If the profession was paying for it, paul would be a reasonable person to
> pay, since he knows how GP works, knows how to do IT on a particular scale,
> and is sensible.
>
> These make him a reasonable person for the State to recruit and pay as
> well, if their desire is to get development right rather than to wave an
> unalterable thing past him.
>
> I think that pretty much covers the range of possibilities - having
> established the matrix we can now read the intentions off from the outcome.
>
>
> --
> Adrian Midgley Open Source software is better
> GP, Exeter http://www.defoam.net/
--
Adrian Midgley Open Source software is better
GP, Exeter http://www.defoam.net/
|