>At 09:10 AM 12/19/97 -0500, you said:
>>>[Geoff chuckles to himself, feeling smug.]
>>
>>It doesn't change the fact that UVM is still a
>>predominately Wordperfect shop.
>
>This is a myth.

Your contradiction is the real myth.  The College of Arts & Sciences
administrative staff primarily uses Wordperfect. The Dean's Office
primarily uses Wordperfect.  I would say conservatively that 80% of the
faculty and staff in the college use Wordperfect.  Since the College of
Arts & Sciences makes up approximately 51% of the faculty and staff of the
University, approximately 400 people,  that means that  320 people use
Wordperfect exclusively.  This isn't even counting all the grad students,
lecturers and others who use Wordperfect.  I would say that the only
population that does not have a large number of Wordperfect users would be
the Mac population, where Word is indeed king.

>Yes, WordPerfect is used by many people. However, I've found more computers
>with Word than WP in my travels around campus. And there are lots of other
>products out there, too.

I've found exactly the opposite.  Tell ya what, let's do a survey.  We can
hypothesize our brains out here, but without hard numbers we can't make any
conclusions based on the reality.

>The Customer Advantage Program (CAP) through which many at UVM bought WP
>licenses from CIT ended in the Spring of 1996. CIT sold 458 WP license
>units purchased. There are 3100 faculty and staff at UVM.

That just means that the majority of Wordperfect copies were illegal.  Or
were not purchased from CIT.
Despite what some may think, many IT things go on at UVM that CIT is not
involved and knows nothing about.

>>The University either needs to provide the
>>funding to allow departments to switch over to "standard" applications, or
>>the University needs to continue to support Wordperfect.

>There should be a standard set of tools that everyone at UVM has available
>to them, and which everyone knows how to use effectively.
>
>There should be training available, incentives and support for
>participating, changes in hiring and promoting (and tenure) practices to
>assess and reward IT competencies.
>
>Funding? Lot's of ways to structure this, but it's still a zero-sum game.
>If we (UVM) coordinate and manage spending on IT across the institution, we
>might better provide coherence in tools and training.

I disagree.  We don't know how much is currently being spent, we can't
gather real meaningful numbers, centralizing is out of the question due to
the UVM funding system.  It is unavoidable that we will have to spend more
money.  The biggest flaw of the ITTF report is that it doesn't have any
numbers attached.  How much are all the proposed changes going to cost?
How much money do we have to work with?  How are we going to get the
various divisional fiefdoms to comply?  The President's wing is already
under the impression that IT support will be centralized in the near term.
Unfortunately that is not what the ITTF report said, nor is it ever going
to be possible unless UVM fundamentally changes how it is financed.

I asked Norman and Roger over three years ago for a cost per seat for
running the Waterman Lab.  I still have yet to get any hard numbers.  What
is CIT's total operating budget?  How much is spent on AIS, ACS, Client
services, etc?  I'll show you my numbers, you show me yours.