On Monday 14 November 2005 10:38, Jon Warbrick wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Paschoud,J wrote:
> > The Gateway is either in a "pilot phase" or it's "in production"
> > (quoting successive messages both from yourself). If the "production"
> > status is "purely technical", from what perspective(s) is it *not* ready
> > for production use?
> > I believe JISC have commissioned the Gateway as a transitional tool, so
> > what do they think?
> Quite. It was concerns along these lines that caused me to ask the
> question in the first place. Until a service via the Gateway is comparable
> to Classic Athens or AthensDA then the Gateway isn't actually much use as
> far as transitioning _our_ production services are concerned. It's
> irrelevant here if the shortcomings are in the Gateway itself or as a
> result of decisions made by resource providers.
Whether a new service is 'comparible' to any existing Athens service is not a
black and white issue. The fundamental reason for the issues that Alistair
helpfully pointed out in his original article was because we need to better
address how we manage the transition. It is clear from what we have heard
that some improvements need to be made. In the six months that the gateway
has been available we have already addressed some issues which are directly
within our control, and continue to work with service providers to ensure
compliance with our integration standards. I see both of these as a rolling
programme of change, which is why the issue of whether a system is deemed
suitable for an organisations 'production' use is subjective to the
requirements of that organisation. When delivering a service, particularly to
large communities, with different, and often conflicting requirements, change
is often iterative in nature so as to maintain a balance between service
continuity and the incorporation of new requirements.