What do we react to

Funding research

1. Violate open standards
2. Has poor performance
3. Has closed source/protocols (vendor lock-in)
4. Gives unfair advantage to one company
5. Is worse than our current (free) software
6. Is incompatible with most client software
7. Is incompatible with our server software
8. Is expensive and irremovable once installed

Arguments used to counter the Exchange solution can be summarised as

• The decision to integrate email and calendar is highly questionable and lacks a technical justification (calendar and room booking systems can exist alongside email, no need to join them).
• The study used to justify the choice made is bogus because it fails to properly weigh the impact of the new system on many users. Many users would probably not even use the calendar and room booking (e.g. me), and even in the report there isn't a clear winning solution.
• The IT direction has failed in their duty of care to properly inform the employees of the process, which affects one the most important systems that they rely on.
• As far as I could read, there was no assessment of the cost benefit of the new system. I assume the new cost is much higher, and the benefits questionable. Someone has to know the numbers and should be able to say how much more this will cost, which we can then use in the campaign: "UiO to spend XXX million to integrate email and calendar".
• I am not sure if the UiO director can have executive powers on such an important matter. The attempt to disguise this as a 'technical point' should be fought against. It is something that will cost the university a lot of money and negatively affect many employees.

• First: there is no problem.
• Second: even if there were a problem, there were different and better solutions that were not even taken into account
• Third: the "solution" the UiO directors have come up with is especially bad -- in terms of dependence of one vendor, of cost, of lack of interoperability with other programs, etc. etc.