Thanks - I did miss that.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
george@cmephyconsulting.com
310-920-3860
On Aug 3, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Benjamin A. Rolfe <ben@blindcreek.com> wrote:
George,
You seem to have missed my point. We have editors. In 15 more who use Word than Famemaker typically. We would like to get them all to use Framemaker. A common
excuse reason given is the cost of a license. Most everyone has MS Office anyway. Few have Framemaker. I'm not sure if I buy that cost is the main reason, but if we have some licensed available we remove that
excuse
reason.
FWIW
B
On 8/3/2020 11:07 AM, George Zimmerman wrote:
It seems Ben, that the first suggestion is the status quo. Right now, we seem to have editors for our projects. It is reasonable to expect our volunteers to provide tools
for the jobs they sign up for. Everyone wants to pay less or someone else to pay for it – yet we provide the tools we need, whether it is from the affiliation or from the affiliation. We buy our MATLAB, word, email, etc. Frame is just a specific tool. I
personally bought a frame license, and am now looking at buying an upgrade.
George, all
The reality in my experience in 802.15 and 802.19 is that if we followed your first suggestion - limited the editor pool to editors that had a licensed on their own, we would not have editors for many projects.
I am not sure if the cost or learning curve is the reason some editors only have Word. If we remove the cost excuse, we'll find out which it is ;-). Thus I continue to endorse the experiment of providing licenses.
Another advantage of providing licenses is that 802 can "sync" versions with staff editors, which would help with the version compatibility issues.
Regards
-Ben
On 8/3/2020 8:55 AM, George Zimmerman wrote:
Dorothy –
Based on my experience as an editor of multiple projects, both for single-editor drafts and multi-editor drafts, I would suggest that today, all editors get a license on their
own. You don’t edit if you don’t have access to a license. It is somewhat of a self-selecting process. If 802 offered licenses, this dynamic would change. However, the licenses would not ony serve to expand the potential editor pool, but would also solve
a significant ‘version alignment’ issue in existing editorial teams – so demand could be greater. Because Frame only supports limited backwards compatability (without using MIF files, which can cause problems), editorial teams need to have a way of getting
into the same version. In my experience most people don’t update their frame licenses continuously. I have worked on multi-editor projects where coordination into a single version is difficult, and generally involves one editor who has either multiple versions
of frame available (unusual) or a ‘bridge’ version to bring everything to the same version. On these multi-editor projects, the push to get out a draft involves 3 or more people working simulataneously, switching off. Thus, the demand could be significant,
and could involve more license swapping than you expect.
To answer Roger’s question, in my experience, it is more like
"I need to do some editing on Monday and Tuesday next week, but someone else can have it Wednesday?",
You might even consider allocating the license and management to a team for a period of time. After thinking about it a bit, the management may be more headache than the benefit.
(which, as an editor, I did support)
-george
Hello All,
I think the license reassignment should be infrequent. I don’t think that frequent turnarounds are feasible, for example, two editors sharing a license with one working M-W
and the other T-F. Or one week on one week off.
I think we should assume that the licenses would be assigned to a technical editor when they (or their working group chair) demonstrates need: e.g., the editor is unable to
get their sponsor’s support or after losing sponsor support. And then expect that they will retain the license for the duration of the project or until circumstances change.
I wonder if it would not be better to approve a budget for licenses and then purchase and release the licenses as needed. My understanding is the licensing is a per quarter
lease. So adding and removing licenses could be effected on that time frame.
-Robert
James, all,
How many editors are not able to obtain a Framemaker license on their own?
With (1) we are not providing licenses for all of the editors. With option 2, how many licenses are provided?
Very frequent management and reassignment sounds like a level of management best avoided.
Dorothy
Roger
Very little. We get a dashboard to mange the licenses and we can assign and reassign licenses at will.
That said, I don't want to have a full time job assigning licenses.
James Gilb
On July 29, 2020 6:30:46 PM UTC, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG> wrote:
James,
How much friction is involved in license reassignment?
Would it work like "I need to do some editing on Monday and Tuesday next week, but someone else can have it Wednesday?", or more like "I need it from Jan 2021 through June 2022"? Or something in between?
On Jul 29, 2020, 10:51 AM -0600, James P. K. Gilb <000008e8b69871c2-dmarc-request@listserv.ieee.org>,
wrote:
All
After ignoring my action items for about a year, others have done most
of the hard work and so I can report the following;
5 Framemaker licenses that can be shared among editors, assigned for
periods of time and then switcthed to new editors as necessary, will
cost just under $2500/year ($400+ dollars per yearly license).
The motion passed last July said:
Move that the LMSC authorize the purchase of Framemaker subscription
licenses with a cost not to exceed $1000 for a time period not to extend
past December 2020 as a test. Technical Editors who want access to these
licenses will contract the LMSC First Vice Chair, who will determine the
distribution of the licenses.
So, I would need a new motion to authorize $2500 for a time period not
to extend past December 2021.
Or we could go for fewer license to try it out.
Please respond with one of:
1) I think we should go for $2500
2) Keep it to $1000 with fewer licenses
3) Drop the idea.
This is sort of a straw poll, so anyone can respond. But note that
actually spending the money will require a majority of the voting
members of the EC at a meeting.
Thanks
James Gilb
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
|