ITB Meeting Minutes October 8, 1999

Absent: Mark Aldenderfer, Jennifer Gebelein, Matt Tirrell

Bob Sugar opened the meeting and announced that the campuses' comments on the Draft UC Electronic Communications Policy are due mid-November. The ITPG has looked at the draft, identified problems, and will have their comments available on their website early next week. Glenn and Elise will distribute ITPG comments on UCEC Policy to the ITB at the next meeting. ITB members should review the policy and bring their comments to the next ITB meeting.

Bob then said that the EVC has asked the ITB to review Terry Smith's request that the Alexander Digital Library receive additional campus support. The ADL is an NSF sponsored project that is part of the California Digital Library. Terry expects it will become a major teaching tool over the next five years. He wants it to become part of the instructional infrastructure of the campus and feels that it should be supported as such.

Bob then started the discussion on the agenda items:

At the last meeting we reached consensus on what the OIT organization should be. I edited the draft OIT Responsibilities. Dave sent email indicating we should consolidate the network programmers and Communications Services in the OIT. I want to summarize what we agreed on first before turning to this question. Bob solicited corrections and none were offered.

He moved on to discuss what sort of organization would best carry out the responsibilities which have been agreed upon. He concluded Dave was right – keep all IT infrastructure together, i.e., Communications Services and the campus network programmers. We will have a faculty person in the leadership role overseeing IT. The Director of Communications Services is planning to retire. We need to search for a new leader with duties shifted to match the responsibilities we have assigned to the OIT. Dave's suggestion guides us to the best of both worlds. It unifies responsibility for all IT infrastructure, while keeping the benefits we perceive for the OIT. The people doing the work expressed this sentiment too. So, the wording will be changed to include voice, video, and data networks. This will not interfere with Academic computing and Student Affairs, but will provide the infrastructure all organizations need.

Sarah asked if there will be a need for additional support staff, both clerical and technical. Bob said we should consult Vince Sefcik (Director, Communications Services) and Glenn about whether we need an analyst to help with administrative duties, but there probably already exists these people. New people are needed on CalREN 2 and security issues. We need to increase staff to cover these. The approach Dave recommended minimizes the number of people we'll have to hire. Whether we can shift responsibilities within Communications Services or need to increase the staff remains to be seen.

Peter agreed in general but said with the new responsibilities there will need to be new staff as well. Bob said he suspected that is the case. Sarah added that as soon as we get the half-time faculty person in the leadership role, she/he will identify the need for assistance with the coordination of technology. Glenn said that Vince has served in that role. Paul Valenzuela (Asst. Director, Communications Services) has served as operations manager. Their analyst is a full-time person.

Michael asked to review the structure and how it will work. Bob said the head of OIT will report to the EVC. That person will be a faculty member with a half-time appointment. The Director of Communications Services (now Vince Sefcik) will report to the head of OIT. She or he will supervise voice and data technical staff as well as the campus network programmers. The faculty person will bring policy issues to the ITB and, with the Director of IS&C, will co-chair the ITPG.

Michael remarked that, with these responsibilities in addition to coordination, this is a line position. Bob agreed that it is in that spirit. Joan commented that the ITB Chair is a different person from the OIT Director. Bob said further that the ITB represents the campus as a whole. Sarah said she thought these were reasonable models. You have a political separation between the operational and the chair of the committee. The Chair can deal with issues that aren't appropriate to discuss with the entire board.

Michael asked whether the driving force behind the model was the guidance of the director or the sources of funding in creating the office. Bob said it is a structure that addresses as many of the problems as possible. Academic issues can't be addressed by Vince alone, for example. He can't represent to the EVC what the academic requirements are. It needs to go the other way too. Faculty members are not good at running operations. You need professionals. The current plan provides both. Bob said humorously, if you're lucky, you get someone like Peter, but if you get a physicist things may go into a black hole.

Michael said he has been a supporter from the beginning, but that it was important to have the board separate from the operations. He questioned having a faculty member be part of the administration and be free of these overlapping concerns. Bob said if there isn't a reporting structure, it's hard to guide it. The reporting structure is important to avoid confusing priorities, which can happen when people carrying out the work are not reporting to the people setting the priorities. Thus, there should be independent leadership of the ITB. Sarah said she agreed. Michael said the board has to commit to being an active board.

Bob said the chair of the ITB should not be the director of the OIT, but they should work together cooperatively. The Planning Group has the technical expertise around the campus, but there needs to be the group that is responsible for the IT structure. The person at the head shouldn't get too involved in the day-to-day operations. Bob suggested that we start with our best guess about the time the director will need to spend, and the staff it will take. He asked the board members if they were ready to make a decision. The board voted in favor of the plan.

Sarah said it would help if an organization chart were produced, including the old and new organizations, to make things clearer. Dorothy said to include providers of services as well. Bob said he would be out of town for a few days, but he would get a draft memo to the board as soon as he returned.

Bob moved on the next topic, the question of responsibility for intra-building wiring. Not all buildings meet the campus wiring standard. At present, Communications Services is responsible for inter-campus wiring, but no organization is responsible for intra-building wiring. By default, the responsibility falls to the occupants of the building. There are problems when resources are different for various occupants and when organizations move about. It has been suggested that the OIT be responsible for wiring to the wall plate. If a department wants to go beyond the standard, that is fine, but we should insure that at a minimum the campus standards are fulfilled.

Todd Lee said we are in the hole to bring buildings up to the standard. Unless we address it as a long-term issue, some groups will always be in the hole. L&S is looking at campus policy, and asks if the OIT will be responsible for wiring to the wall plate. If yes, then one-time money will be used to upgrade to the campus standard. Then we have to create a budget so we have funds over time to keep the standard up across the board. Look at providing wire to the office. Look at putting money aside for ongoing maintenance. How this is done will have to be discussed: recharge, monthly connection fees, etc. The College feels it should be a fair sharing of costs. Some have already spent a lot of money.

Peter commented that, regarding keeping wiring up to standard, Computer Science created a budget that puts money aside for this. He liked the idea of a policy. Individual departments can supplement campus funds to go beyond the standard. Todd added you should get credit up to the cost of implementing the standard. Peter asked,how do you get from here to there? It would be demoralizing if a unit spent money on wiring but then is penalized when funding goes to those units that did not provide for themselves.

Dave said the value of communication is diverse across the campus. Not everyone wants the same level of connectivity. Budgets reflect institutional priorities. Central funds can be spent to bring standards to departments that don't value it. Todd said that we have a lot of administrative systems in place, but some departments cannot access them because they lack connectivity to do it. Michael said there was no way to make it fair. So you have to take the institutional approach to this. This is in some ways the most democratic approach. I think this is a good way to go. Bob agreed. He said Physics chose to invest in wiring at a time when it wasn't essential for English. Now the world has changed, and it is essential that all departments have access to the network. There ought to be a minimum standard that everybody gets and there is a better chance of getting funding if we take this approach. Peter said he thought it was a high priority, and didn't mean to suggest withholding it from those who had not invested previously.

Dave asked what the departments will be able to do when you get the wiring to the wall. We have been moving data entry functions out to departments – applications like the Payroll Personnel System and travel. Departments need to be able to perform these functions.

Joan said certain departments don't have money for networking. Too small to own buildings, they may be moved about based on space needs. They have little control over building space and wiring.

Elise said there should not be cyclical replacement without reviewing the standard. Michael said administrators will feel better if it is done on an as-needed basis. Ron said we had no idea the policy of "to the building" was the standard. Let's plan for the future in the standard.

Bob said communications was at the bottom of the list with respect to building planning. The backbone needs to be maintained in the same manner. One-time money is not the way to fund basic infrastructure. The greatest problem may be with intra-building wiring, but the same issues apply to backbone wiring.

When the ITB and ITPG did their study of institutional computing equipment, they found that it was funded on a one-time basis too. There are a lot of problems that require a policy change regarding putting money aside. The OIT should come forward with a plan for funding the IT infrastructure, but I don't want to distract us from the policy discussion.

Todd said communications cost should still be part of the building cost. Michael said sometimes they are value-engineered out. We have to assure that projects that get in trouble, like HSSC, don't expect the campus to pick up the cost of communications that they engineered out.

Recommendations:

1. OIT is responsible for wiring to the wall plate.
2. One-time funding will be necessary to bring buildings up to standard.
3. Funds should be available for upgrades to wiring.
4. Campus standards should be reviewed regularly and updated as needed.
5. A plan should be developed for implementation by July 1, 2000.

Dave asked, how do we generate revenues to do this? I'm worried about OIT's responsibilities. Todd said we should make sure we are all up to the standard. Dave said, regarding balancing needs when setting academic priorities, who makes the decisions when there are different revenue streams not dependent on state funds? Michael said that we need to state that the cycle of replacement has to be based on need, and bias should not play a role. Bob said some organization will have to draw up the plan and it will have to be reviewed by the ITB and other groups. Let's focus on policy issues 1-5, as stated earlier.

Sarah said if we mention funding will come from a number of sources so it doesn't imply the OIT will be responsible for all funding. We need to identify a source of funding to carry out the policy " wiring to the wall plate." I like having cyclical in the policy because it's the only thing it can be. Peter said it depends on what the cycle is, and it can vary. Michael said the policy will state there will be a regular replacement cycle.

Bob said he would email the revisions and comments could be made via email. He reminded the board that the Alexandria Project would be on the agenda for the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned 4:45 PM.