Present: Arlene Allen, Art Battson, Glenn Davis, Bill Doering, Rick Johnson, Bill Koseluk, Tom Marazita, Alan Moses, Joan Murdoch, Stan Nicholson, Jason Poley, Jamie Sonsini, Bob Sugar
Not Present: Debbie Anglin, Kevin Barron, Ken Bowers, Phil Handley, Tom Lawton, Ed Mehlschau, Elise Meyer, Larry Murdock, Kevin Schmidt, Deborah Scott, Vince Sefcik, John Vasi
The meeting began with reviews of estimated costs associated with backbone networking and existing commitments for Network Augmentation & Maintenance funds. Spreadsheets showing baseline, baseline plus Phase I fiber only, and baseline plus Phase I fiber with equipment were presented. After some discussion we concluded that Phase I cannot go forward unless we obtain a commitment of $250-300K per year in permanent funding. This requirement includes the assumption that Communications Services will be able to provide an additional $309K per year beginning in FY 00/01. (A summary spreadsheet illustrating this conclusion has been prepared: see NGB Draft Budget [xls]).
A question was raised regarding the wisdom of amortizing the NGB equipment and, thus, committing future years’ funding before the establishment of the OIT. It was observed that there are various other sources of OIT funding and that we can’t afford to stop and wait. For example an additional $1.4M in permanent IT funding has been budgeted for the campus. Moreover, the OIT discussions might be nearing conclusion.
The relationship of the funding strategy to the design goals of Phase I NGB was explored in depth. If a multi-year financial strategy implies a multi-year implementation, those units who are to be served last might be tempted to request separate funding to "self-fund" connections to NGB in year one. Some of these units might request funding from the same sources that are providing the NGB funding, confusing the network funding picture significantly. Moreover, without the full deployment of building switches envisioned in Phase I, self-funded units might implement sub-optimal routes and, thus, confuse the network topology for future maintenance and expansion. A discussion of the possibility of meeting the most pressing needs first ensued. Opinions diverged.
Independent of the financial strategy, some felt that the NGB could be 90% implemented within twelve months of receiving funding.
Next, the group discussed the process by which we will establish priorities for the ten to twelve ITPG proposals that will be put forward. The process we agreed upon has the following steps:
- Stan will convene a subgroup of those proposing course web support to integrate and articulate the specific items to be proposed for these topics. The final list needs to be completed by Friday, December 3.
- Glenn and Elise will construct an electronic ballot to be mailed to ITPG discussion list members. The ballot will list the proposals and instruct voters to rank order all of the items using "1" to indicate the proposal they feel should have the highest priority, "2" to indicate the second highest, etc. Ballots will be sent to ITPG members by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 6.
- ITPG discussion-list members who have attended at least one ITPG meeting prior to December 8 may vote.
- Those able to attend the December 8 ITPG meeting should print their ballots, rank order the proposals and bring the results to the meeting. Those who are not able to attend the meeting may mark their ballots electronically and email them to one of the co-chairs to bring to the meeting. If you email your ballot, please do so before Wednesday December 8 at 8:00 a.m.
- At the December 8 meeting, we will add up the ranks given to each item and determine the joint rank-order. We will then discuss the results and entertain any motions to modify them before submitting the proposals with priorities assigned to the ITB.
During the discussion it was noted that CBT has changed its name to "Smart Force" and is moving toward providing a complete "learning environment" for computer-based instruction. The new company will also host the environment for its customers, reducing the burden of maintaining course materials. To lure UC campuses to participate in the new offering SF will offer large discounts for moving to the new service during the upcoming third year of our contract. It is not expected that we will bite.
Bill K. reported on a recent visit to Oakland during which he learned details of the, "Teaching and Learning Technologies IT Costing Study", now being coordinated by UCOP. The previous version of this document was instrumental in obtaining IT budget augmentations in the past two years. UCSB has not participated in the study thus far, so we are obliged to play catch up this year. Bill circulated the packet of spreadsheets that require completion. He plans to distill items into questions for various groups at UCSB (lab proprietors, classroom support staff, etc.). It was noted that there are lines for network as well as workstation expenditures and plans. Once the questions are answered, Bill will transcribe the data to the spreadsheet format and circulate for comments. UCOP would like the results by December 15 (optimistic).
Stan circulated the final copy of the ITPG Student Survey and noted that it will be presented to approximately 2000 students in ten very large classes by December 10. The specific classes were randomly chosen from a list of large classes provided by the Registrar. Although Stan might not bet his reputation on the sampling methodology, some gross generalization of the results to the student body should be possible. This is important because most survey results reported to date are from groups that have self-selected into courses utilizing IT. In contrast, this survey will provide some insight into the network access available to students in general. Once the surveys have been administered, some help with data entry might be required to process the data.
The faculty survey has also been circulated; responses are encouraged.
It was noted that we need to form the new ITPG subcommittees that have been under discussion. For example, Windows 2000 presents opportunities for enterprise-wide domains that need to be explored and defined for administrative units. Also, as presently understood Windows 2000 will present challenges because it doesn’t inter-operate with standard directory and authentication procedures (e.g., Kerberos tickets don’t work in the same way).
It was observed that a recent "blue memo" from the administration regarding the holidays stated that "computing" services would be available. However, academic computing units are generally closed during the holiday breaks so future memos might specify "central administrative computing services" in this regard.
Jamie volunteered to chair (or co-chair) a group interested in researching the possibilities presented by emerging technologies such as the Palm Pilot and related wireless connectivity options. (What will we be doing with the computers that we all will be wearing in 2005?) This group would focus on technology exploration rather than product selection in preparation for the deluge of options that are expected. Those interested in participating should contact Jamie Sonsini at IS&C.
The next ITPG meeting will be December 8 at 10:00 a.m. in North Hall 1131. Make your opinion count – show up or send in your ballot!
Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule
