ITPG Meeting Minutes November 21, 2005

Present: Arlene Allen, Larry Carver, Saturnino Doctor, Bill Doering, Doug Drury, Randall Ehren, George Gregg, Kirk Grier, Bill Koseluk, Tom Lawton, Shea Lovan, Steve Marks, Elise Meyer, George Michaels, Alan Moses, Glenn Schiferl, Jan Smith, Jamie Sonsini, Jacek Smits, Colin Thompson, Paul Weakliem, Jim Woods.

ITPG Subcommittees

A spreadsheet was distributed with a matrix of subcommittees and information items that were requested from the previous meeting.

There was discussion about the authority vested in subcommittees. The initial four areas of authority discussed were:

1. Leadership (ITB, Executive Steering Committee, Governance)
2. Strategy (Planning Groups: ATPG, EISPG, and ITPG)
3. Tactical – Coordination and Advice
4. Task Level (Project Team, Working Group, Individual Tasks)

A service provider operates at both the Strategic and Task levels.

Subcommittees may have some or all of the types of authority listed below:

1. Strategic – Every subcommittee should identify gaps.
2. Tactical – Every subcommittee should provide coordination, but what is the type of advice/recommendations provided to the higher level group (e.g., ITPG)? Is it:
   • For information only
   • For review
   • For approval
   On a tactical level, a subcommittee cannot direct service provider staff, but it can make decisions that can bind the campus.
3. Task – An example of a task is when SEC-WG shut down mail relays.

There was discussion about what to do if there was a problem with the relationship between the subcommittee and the associated service provider. There were two areas of concern:

1. If the chair of the subcommittee is the service provider, there is the potential that discord between the subcommittee and the service provider could be filtered from reports to the ITPG, e.g., if the subcommittee recommended that the service provider should do X, and the service provider would not or could not do X (and X is the right thing to do). In this case the control is that for many committees there is an overlap between membership in the subcommittee and the ITPG, so there are other people who can bring an issue forward to the ITPG if the chair does not. In addition, the ITPG can replace a chair if they do not think they are doing the right thing.
2. If the chair of the subcommittee is not the service provider, there is the potential that the subcommittee could decide that the service provider should do Y, and the Y is not the right thing to do. In this case the chair should go to their supervisor and get them involved in the disagreement, which may also involve the ITPG.

Next we discussed rules of engagement, many of which were introduced in Matt Dunham’s email of 11/21/05 to the mailing list.

• Agenda publishing
• Action items defined
• Meeting minutes
• Mailing lists
• Meeting schedule
• Chair
• Timeframe for projects
• Reporting responsibilities
• Report on progress
• Membership – representative or experts in the area of focus
• Decision making

If one purpose of a subcommittee is to provide campus representation for a particular issue, it is a problem if all of the representatives don’t regularly attend. Therefore it is critical that the subcommittee have an up-to-date electronic presence with documentation of meeting minutes and action items so that all members have an opportunity to participate in the committee’s work.

There was discussion that all of the subcommittee’s web presence should be available from a single location, either the OIT website or CSF website (or both).

New Business

Should we do an RFP before our Norton Antivirus volume purchase agreement expires in June ’06, and if so, who should do it?

Next Meeting

Our next meeting will be Thursday, December 15, at 9:30 am in Broida 3302. We will be reviewing the missions of each of the subcommittees to make sure that they are still focusing on the right issues.