Update software_licenses.md #690
Conversation
New paragraph at the bottom of the page. Updated to reflect access to assistive technology software following discussion with ED&I community group and a number of requests to Ops and People team.
|
@sam-p87 @JillKittos @yaseminercan - could you take a look at this request please when you get a sec and ensure you're happy with it? Thanks. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall this looks fine to me, though not sure we need to surface the stuff about what's free vs. paid here (unless there was some rationale for doing that?) - think I'd prefer to condense that into something a bit simpler along the lines of:
- Please contact the Ops team for guidance on what assistive technology we already have available
- We'll consider adding new tools to our approved list where existing options don't meet needs
Any views?
|
Comfortable with that @sam-p87 - main reason re free v paid was confirming that the default will be to the readily available free licences and that we'll have a method for assessing how to allocate corporate licences... |
|
I'm unclear on what I have to pay for and from what. The last point makes me think that in some cases I may have to pay for a license from my work from home budget but it wasnt specifically mentioned. |
|
Yeh ok thanks @NinaPinPeople and @yaseminercan - recognise that needs to sit behind this; just wonder if it's ok for that to be an operational decision. I think I'd have a reasonably high level of trust that only people who'll really benefit will ask for access to these tools. If we saw demand for software going through the roof - much of it outside any process for understanding 'reasonable adjustments' - then I'd be tempted to more explicit about the need to assess 'is this an org overhead or part of your WFH budget'; but - and maybe this is where I'm missing Jill's context while she's off - at the moment I'd feel comfortable about use of these tools sitting in our general operational SaaS budget and so not needing any mention of 'how it gets paid for' in the handbook update. |
|
Additional context @sam-p87 - we have limited business licences in place as it stands, we have had a fair few requests in the last few months, we haven't got any formal method for determining additional needs that may require more than a basic/free package but are liaising with Occ Health on this and so we thought something that confirmed it won't be an automatic provision in the interim might be useful but if you're cool with monitoring ongoing, that's fine - it's then if/how we would determine who we might need to remove licences from down the line potentially without any assessment of need (Jill did mention Torri might be a good route for that). |
Updated language on assistive technology options.
|
@sampaice-MT I've proposed a change here having reviewed with Jill. Could you check and assuming all happy, push to live please? |
New paragraph at the bottom of the page. Updated to reflect access to assistive technology software following discussion with ED&I community group and a number of requests to Ops and People team.