AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20081009083407.7dcf03a9@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<brian.stark@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0C0115D9@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:34:24 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Brian Stark" <brian.stark@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: ONStor TDI Spreadsheet
Message-ID: <20081009083424.3b149876@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0C0115D9@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0C0115D9@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yes, but it's an actual spreadsheet instead of a PDF.  Darn.  Caeli was
able to do it.  I'll ask her if she had to do anything tricky.

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:41:45 -0700 "Brian Stark"
<brian.stark@onstor.com> wrote:

> Andy,
> 
>  
> 
> I can't open the doc - something about permissions.  I assume it's the
> same as the one in the attachment?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Brian
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: tigerand@gmail.com [mailto:tigerand@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:48 PM
> To: Brian Stark
> Subject: ONStor TDI Spreadsheet
> 
>  
> 
> I've shared a document with you called "ONStor TDI Spreadsheet":
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p2x6MlHrbbSK5IQ9Jyz7nTA&inv=brian
> .stark@onstor.com&t=833432926148468729&guest
> 
> It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open
> this document, just click the link above.
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Here is the google documents spreadsheet. Let me know if this is a
> good way to disseminate this to the others. I can also export it to
> PDF.
> 
> The two basic approaches - hiring a new engineer or using Tridigital -
> are
> priced out for one year, with the development minus new wizards
> expected to take about three months. What this doesn't show is that
> Tridigital can start immediately, whereas it will take a while,
> probably not less than a month, to complete hiring someone. Which
> just further adds to my assessment being that we should hire
> Tridigital (plus the one HCL programmer) to handle this for us over
> the next 6 - 9 months, at which point we can re-assess where we stand
> v. where we want to be standing.
> 
> If you think it's ready, I'll send it out to a wider audience.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> a
> 
