Present: Arlene Allen, Eric Brody, Larry Carver, Glenn Davis, George
Gregg, Chuck Haines, Bill Koseluk, Elise Meyer, Bruce Miller, Alan Moses,
Joan Murdoch, Larry Murdock, Glenn Schiferl, Deborah Scott, Jamie Sonsini,
Bob Sugar
Auth/Dir circulated a draft statement of policy
regarding use of the UCSB Directory for the construction of mailing lists.
There are already policies regarding acceptable use of email (
Electronic Communications
Policy ), and how to receive permission
to send bulk mailings to various groups ( UMail, for example, requires
a signed memo from a Senior Officer before sending notes to all students.
Likewise, the Chancellor's Office approves distributions to all faculty
and the HR Director approves notes to the D-list (Deans, Department Heads
and MSOs). ). One question raised was whether there needed to be
separate LDAP policies to address using LDAP to build mailing lists.
The reason proposed is because LDAP provides powerful capabilities to easily
build mailing lists that were not possible before, e.g., bulk mailing lists,
or mailing lists targeted to a person's classification. After some
discussion, the draft was referred back to Auth/Dir with suggestions regarding
the approval chain to be specified in cases where bulk mailings are proposed.
There was general agreement that statements regarding the intended uses
of the directory and the process for handling exceptional requests should
be posted. The group recommended that the approval process include
Senior Officers. Following steps might be for ITPG to forward a draft
statement to ITB for discussion of policy implications. Result should
be consistent with the Electronic
Communications Policy.
Next, those who attended the ITB Meeting on May 17 reported on discussions
there. The ITB recommended that a committee be formed to discuss
the implementation of a campus archive server. The Library was quite
interested in participating as this topic is under discussion in national
organizations of librarians.
Next step for the high performance computing facility was to hold discussions
with deans who might be asked to provide matching funds in any grant proposals.
Possible participation of the California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) should
also be explored.
Following the presentation of survey data and interpretations, ITB discussed
the need for ongoing survey efforts. The various survey research
centers on campus were noted. In response to a question regarding
what specifically we wanted to learn, the group suggested: (1) Tracking
whether students continue to have access to the tools they need to accomplish
their course work, and (2) Determining which tools the faculty perceives
that students will need in the future. It was suggested that questions
tied to specific courses might be more germane to what we need to know
and it was noted that instructors are obligated to survey their classes
to be certain that required resources are available to students.
In general, we know that anecdotal evidence suggests needs that didn't
stand out in the previous survey responses – how can we use a survey to
crystallize these needs? In response to a suggestion that we survey
incoming students, it was noted that 2000 out of 3650 first year students
live in residence halls and that more than 80% arrived with computers.
Feedback from the May 22/23 Joint Operations Group (JOG) and Communications
Planning Group (CPG) meetings was provided. The agenda and the reports
from campuses are available on the JOG website. Highlights of the UCOP New Business Architecture (NBA)
initiatives were presented. Groups are currently working on a Human
Resources Information System (HRIS) study, an e-Procurement study
and a document outlining infrastructure components (e.g., directories,
portals, XML) that will be necessary to support NBA. These are large,
serious, projects. The consulting reports alone cost nearly $400K
each. The costs of the HRIS and e-Procurement systems recommended
by the consultants are projected to be $46M and $52M respectively.
Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule
