Present: Mark Aldenderfer, Arlene Allen, Chris Dempsey, Bill Doering, Matt Dunham, Bill Koseluk, Shea Lovan, Elise Meyer, George Michaels, Bruce Miller, Alan Moses, Linda Moskovits, Stan Nicholson, Kim Park, Fuzzy Rogers, Doctor Saturnino, Deborah Scott, Jan Smith, Chris Sneathen, Jamie Sonsini, Paul Valenzuela, Paul Weakliem
Information Technology Leadership Council
Federal Anti-spam legislation recently was passed and the ITLC asked UC General Counsel for clarification of how it applied to UC. Mark distributed their response to the mailing list and it is available on the web at http://www.ucop.edu/irc/policy/antispam.pdf. Mail server managers must pay attention and follow the guidelines. Meta Clow will coordinate on campus implementation and education.
The next ITLC meeting will be February 2-3 at UC Irvine. The second day is open to an additional 5 participants from each campus. The agenda will cover Open Source initiatives including SAKAI. Participants are responsible for their own travel costs; however, lunch will be provided. Please let Mark know by January 21 if you will be attending.
Mark Aldenderfer and Arlene Allen are the official campus representatives to ITLC. There has been a request for better dissemination of ITLC information. Mark and Arlene can report on the meetings, and forward information as appropriate, but some items are confidential and may not be forwarded. ITLC meeting minutes are available on the web at http://www.ucop.edu/irc/itlc/.
The Secure IT Conference–2004 in San Francisco was announced. They are looking for both speakers and attendees. Further information is available at http://www.secureitconf.com/.
Network Citizenship
After incorporating various rounds of comments, the Network Citizenship draft was presented to the ITB in December and January. The change incorporated from the ITB comments was to involve control points when a department is no longer in compliance and their network connection is at risk. Since there are no further comments, we will begin implementing these guidelines. Formal announcement and distribution of the guidelines will be forthcoming. All departments will be notified and the contact lists updated.
ITPG Proposals Process
During our brainstorming session at our December meeting, the following list was developed:
- Persistent Archive
- Media Repository
- Course Management
- Licensing Support
- Unfunded IBW
- IT Staffing (additional need due to changing security environment)
- Classroom Technology (including baselines & consistent funding)
- IT Policy/Guidelines, Outreach
- Centralized Credit Card Processing
- Commodity Services – email, web, etc.
- Data Modeling – information sharing, training, ongoing education
- Getting Student Data into the Datawarehouse (Easier access to student data)
- Wireless Implementation & Management
- Administrative Computing: Futures & Vision
- Portal
- IT Funding (at Department and Campuswide levels, consider student technology fee)
- XML Standards for Form Interchange
- New Business Architecture
- Uber (Smart) Cards (including building access, authorization, purchases, student access, printing, ID, Rec Cen, Arts & Lectures)
- Gus Accounting System Support & Development (20 departments currently use it)
During our brainstorming session at our December meeting, the following list was developed:
- Student Computing: workstations, Internet connectivity and printing
- Baseline Standards
There was also a question of whether the New Business Architecture item from last meeting meant UCOP's NBA, which included initiatives like E-Procurement and HRIS, or whether it applied to UCSB systems such as Administrative and Student Systems.
The group then considered whether any items should be removed from the list. On January 15, the OIT made a presentation to the BEG about a proposed Wireless Prototype network. The purpose of this prototype is to investigate what it would take to deploy and support a campus-wide wireless network, now that the wireless standards have evolved to allow for better access security. This prototype will involve provocative locations with lots of different types of users and uses, and will also be a test bed for 802.1x. The BEG offered advice regarding the scope of this project. Their advice on how to proceed came in three flavors:
- What took you so long, proceed with haste.
- This project should be ranked alongside other projects through the ITPG proposal process.
- More studies are needed to determine UCSB user needs, and to learn from other campus's experiences.
The group then started to discuss the remaining proposals.
Persistent Archive – The problem is that articles are written referencing large data sets and there is no standard, persistent location for these data sets. They could be located on an individual faculty member’s machine that could disappear if they left UCSB.
Media Repository – The problem is that many classes provide access to a volatile set of online media. Access control to this media needs to honor copyright and licensing restrictions. Class media requirements could change by quarter or by instructor. Some media that becomes stable could evolve into being stored in the Alexandria Digital Library, but the ADL is not a good solution for the majority of this media.
Course Management – The problem is that UCSB is the one UC that is not using a campuswide Course Management System and yet individual departments and instructors are doing their own thing to provide a variety of course management functionality. The advent of SAKAI offers a rich set of features, and flexible architecture that could allow our cutting edge faculty to build tools to add to SAKAI. An FTE is needed to research the options, and to specifically look at SAKAI. A question was asked what was the OIT doing about Course Management, since it said that it would take this on during the last ITPG proposal process. Twice grassroot proposals were brought forward to the senior officers and they didn’t find traction. This time the OIT attempted to get buy-in from the senior officers first, and then form a task force consisting of faculty and staff stakeholders. Mark spent last academic year meeting with various senior officers and high level groups, but no traction was reached. There is now some interest by the EVC, and the OIT will be sponsoring an event in May with an outside speaker to develop interest and enthusiasm in course management. Some wondered if there wasn’t adequate interest in going further, but others assured the group that there was faculty interest in participating on the task force. The group considered whether this proposal should really be to invest a campus service provider to offer a campuswide course management system. Both the OIT and Instructional Consultation were offered as possible locations for such a service. Another possibility would be to follow the email proposal and propose the system, but not include the location.
The group ran out of time to discuss all the proposals, so individuals and groups were assigned to write a paragraph and send it to the list prior to the next meeting. The assignments are:
- Persistent Archive - Alan Moses & Larry Carver
- Media Repository – Alan Moses & Larry Carver
- Course Management – Stan Nicholson
- Licensing Support – Matt Dunham
- Unfunded IBW – Elise Meyer
- Classroom Technology (including baselines & consistent funding) – Bill Koseluk
- Centralized Credit Card Processing – Chris Dempsey
- Commodity Services – email, web, etc. – Chris Dempsey
- Data Modeling – information sharing, training, ongoing education– Chris Dempsey
- Getting Student Data into the Datawarehouse (Easier access to student data) – Chris Dempsey & Deborah Scott
- Portal – left on the list, but no champion was identified
- XML standards for Form Interchange – Bruce Miller
- New Business Architecture – Deborah Scott
- Uber (Smart) Cards (including building access, authorization, purchases, student access, printing, ID, Rec Cen, Arts & Lectures) – Bill Doering & Larry Carver (?)
- Gus Accounting System Support & Development (20 departments currently use it) – Fuzzy Rogers
- Student Computing: workstations, Internet connectivity & printing – Deborah Scott & Bill Koseluk
The following were considered discussion points rather than proposals and were dropped from the list:
- IT Staffing (additional need due to changing security environment)
- IT Policy/Guidelines, Outreach
- Baseline Standards
Proposal Process: The ITPG co-chairs wanted to enhance the proposal process. They are working on a more detailed proposal format. This new format will incorporate information such as who are the partners, who are the beneficiaries and how do they benefit. And a detailed implementation timeline. The new proposal format will be distributed to the list prior to the next meeting.
The group decided that we should meet every two weeks to accelerate the process. The next meeting will be on January 30, 9:30-11:00 a.m. in the Mary Cheadle Room, 3591 Library.
Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule
