Present: Arlene Allen, Art Battson, Glenn Davis, Bill
Doering, George Gregg, Phil Handley, Rick Johnson, Bill Koseluk, Tom Marazita,
Elise Meyer, Alan Moses, Joan Murdoch, Larry Murdock, Stan Nicholsen, Kevin
Schmidt, Deborah Scott, Jamie Sonsini, Bob Sugar, John Vasi
Not Present: Debbie Anglin, Kevin Barron, Ken Bowers, Tom Lawton, Ed Mehlschau, Vince Sefcik
Ballots on ITPG projects were collected from twenty people
and tallied with the following results:
| Project
| Raw Score
| Group Rank
|
| Security Coordinator |
51 |
2.6 |
| NGB Phase I (incl. Classroom Network |
53 |
2.7 |
| Students in Directory |
71 |
3.6 |
| Course Web Support (incl. Class Web) |
98 |
4.9 |
| Student Access Support |
108 |
5.4 |
| PKI Certificates |
112 |
5.6 |
| Gartner Contract |
145 |
7.3 |
| Multimedia Lab |
150 |
7.5 |
| EDUCAUSE Membership |
153 |
7.7 |
| CBT Contract |
158 |
7.9 |
In the discussion following the vote, we decided that
the results should go to ITB in context with the other items already on
their agenda (student access equipment, intrabuilding wiring and OIT) and
that we should mention the downside effects of not moving quickly on the
first two or three items.
We also noted that we should explain the process by which
priorities were set and post the proposals along with a summary matrix
on the ITPG web page in time for ITB members to read them before their
December 17 meeting.
It was noted that the OIT proposal is going forward. Next
steps are to develop a budget for the new unit and to begin the search
for a director. In the discussions, it was emphasized that the new unit
needs a continuing revenue stream and that the infrastructure services
that we have been discussing do not flourish under one-time funding strategies.
Discussions are also progressing on funding models for
supporting the network infrastructure. Calculations of costs per port will
serve as a starting point, although the final result is likely to be a
mix of central and decentralized funding.
It was noted that the campus news server will receive
a hardware upgrade and that supporting it out of RUAC funds will work for
another year.
The vendor for new modem pool equipment has been selected.
Installation is planned for first quarter of 2000. There is a Y2K problem
in the statistical reporting from the old system, but we can live without
the reports for a month or two.
Further discussion centered on how many of the top items
on the priority list were in such urgent need of funding that we should
recommend that they go forward even before the formation of the OIT. We
decided the first five were necessary to go forward, but that we would
emphasize Security and NGB now and indicate that Students in the Directory
would need to be resolved before March 1.
Next step on Security is to make up a Job Description
and run it through HR classification. This task was delegated to the Security
Working Group. The new person will report via the Campus Network Programmers,
who are currently handling much of the security work.
In response to questions regarding the starting point
for NGB, it was noted that discussions with the EVC were underway and that
we could start implementation as soon as a revenue stream was specified.
It is recognized that continuous planning by the OIT will be necessary
to stay on top of technology and funding models and that revisions will
undoubtedly be necessary as we go along. Thus, we advocate that NGB start
now, rather than wait for the reorganization.
Student Affairs in very interested in building on a directory
that contains email addresses for all students. They need to understand
the design for authentication and explore how it might fit with urgent
projects that the division is now pursuing. The issue of using a four-digit
PIN number was also mentioned. After discussion, it was recognized that
funding for an all-students directory must be identified before March 1
to keep several current projects on track. It was noted that adding students
to the directory would be useful to Residence Halls, IC and others and,
thus, might be campus funded, rather than supported entirely by the Student
Affairs division.
With respect to funding and how much might be available,
it was noted that "clarity is an essential piece". That is, departments
need to know what is not likely to be funded so that they can regroup
and go elsewhere. It was noted that neither ITPG nor ITB direct how funding
flows to existing organizations. It is, however, our job to recommend the
functional priorities that, in our opinion, should be funded.
For example, ITB has recommended that computers for student
access be amortized and funded permanently at about $800K per year. This
will take some combination of new money and existing budgets. The number
of computers (1244) needs to be revisited and kept up to date, but it is
not the intent to control this number centrally. Surveys will tell us if
the decentralized model is working. We don't want to attempt to "administer"
the distributed model of providing access.
It was noted that we need to fund the Course Web support
now if we want to have any impact on classes next fall.
Bill Koseluk brought the group up to date on the UCOP
IT Costing Study. Bill has broken the survey down into sections and questions
that he has directed to those most likely to know the answers. He will
consolidate and put into the format requested by the study. As an aside,
it was noted that UCOP data indicate that, on the average, UCSB has the
oldest machines in the inventory. Some, however, suspect the accuracy of
the data. The target dates for the survey are 12/15 for the draft and 12/22
for the final. These dates are seen as optimistic.
Another operative survey is a request from CENIC for examples
of CalREN-2 benefits. UCSB currently has two research groups using CalREN-2
and their progress will be reported.
ITPG Student Survey data are being collected and a data
entry template is being created. Volunteer data entry help will be key
in completing the analysis. The thirty largest courses are being sampled
in class and additional data are being gathered in the L&S labs. Early
returns suggest that students might not be able to make all of the distinctions
called for by the survey (such as which labs they use to do their work).
ITB Faculty Survey data are also coming in. About 240
have mailed in results and another 40 sent answers electronically. Analysis
of results is underway.
The annual Yahoo survey is also out and will be distributed
to the discussion list.
We agreed to launch the Administrative Systems Integration
Subcommittee with Deborah Scott and Gail Johnson as co-chairs.
The WSP (Wireless Scouting Party) has convened and will
report back to ITPG after their investigation into current wireless connection
technologies. Contact Jamie Sonsini at IS&C if you wish to participate.
Next meetings of ITPG are planned for Wednesday mornings
at 10:00 a.m. on January 19, February 16, and March 15, 2000.
Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule
