Present: Mark Aldenderfer, Arlene Allen, Jeffrey Barteet, Larry Carver, Glenn Davis, Doug Drury, Matthew Dunham, George Gregg, Rick Johnson, Bill Koseluk, Tom Lawton, Shea Lovan, Ed Mehlschau, Elise Meyer, Alan Moses, Linda Moskovits, Stan Nicholson, Saturnino Doctor, Glenn Schiferl, Jan Smith, Chris Sneathen, Jamie Sonsini, Paul Weakliem, Craig Welsh
Arlene Allen presented the AuthDir committee’s proposal of “UCSBnetID” as the reference to the LDAP UID field used for authentication. This suggestion was met with approval.
The committee also presented the discussion item of deleting the home address and telephone number information fields from LDAP and replacing them with a free-form field that would allow the holder to include home information if they so desired.
One of the early follow-up questions was then how would the home address and home telephone numbers be printed in the published directory. It was mentioned that discussion was taking place as to whether the printed directory should exclude that information altogether next year. Feedback indicated that we should continue to
print this information for those who want it printed because system administrators need the information to contact people at home or after hours, or they need the information to make computer house calls. They would prefer this information in print rather than LDAP because it is faster for them to access and it would be available during a power outage.
After much discussion, the consensus feedback was:
- The current LDAP home address and telephone information should no longer be accessible electronically to authenticated users as it currently exists.
- The fields should not be free-form but should use standard address and telephone formats, but the field titles should be “Off-campus Contact Information," so that people don't think that they are updating their PPS information when they update LDAP.
- There should be the disclaimer/legalese required by the Public Information Act, followed by an opportunity to select whether the holder wants the information displayed online to authenticated users, and to select whether the holder wants the information printed in the published directory. One flag should deal with both address and telephone access, as opposed to today where there is one flag for each.
Committee members felt that it was acceptable to ask people to go in and update their flags, but not to have individuals re-enter their data.
ITB Meeting Summary
Last Spring the ITB discussed a white paper on academic computing presented by Bruce Bimber and Kevin Almeroth. The paper looked into the projected required services for faculty, staff, and students over the next 5-7 years, and in discussing the “what ifs," it became apparent that this campus needs to be more systematic in the approach and organization of our systems. At the October 30, 2002, ITB meeting Mark Aldenderfer proposed forming an Academic Technology Working Group (ATWG) to review campus academic computing services in light of the white paper. The OIT-led ATWG is an expansion of the “course management task force” project proposed last year. OIT will be taking a comprehensive look at funding, planning, and deployment, and is talking to control points. Mark is also looking for volunteers, both faculty and staff, who are willing to work and to serve on this working group which has no agenda other than to find a way to support the academic mission in the area of academic computing. The target date for recommendations is this Spring Quarter if possible. The faculty survey indicated a clear push in this direction as important, and indicated the faculty’s desire for “more” (although the faculty survey did not define “more”). The working group is expected to foster communication between groups, encourage forward thinking, and as a result more clearly define needs. Staff participation is needed to provide input on implementation aspects of the project. Recommendations should be forwarded to Mark “sooner rather than later."
The Software Depot committee met and identified components of Laurice’s duties that need to be given back to the campus. A handout was provided with a list of site licenses and volume purchases and the corresponding expiration dates. Given that each transaction has a variable degree of difficulty, two basic procedures were outlined:
- A department could research products and vendors, “pass the hat," and manage the billing; or,
- Departments could supply a LAFS to cover any shortfall in funding the purchase. Laurice would continue to pass the hat, but there would be no guarantee of a refund if funding commitments came up short.
Site licenses have the highest probability of being dropped from the Software Depot. Three licenses needing immediate attention are Mathmatica, Imagecast, and S+. Paul Weakliem (Chemistry) will pursue option #1 for Mathmatica, and Tom Lawton (Student Affairs) will champion the renewal of Imagecast, and Joan Murdoch would look into championing S-Plus. The EVC is aware that the loss of Software Depot support due to funding issues will cost the campus more money, and that the situation is expected to get worse.
Matthew Dunham reported that at some point our student email database was harvested, and replies to a recent spamming resulted in a huge surge of email traffic over the system this last weekend. Given the strain on the resources, the campus may decide to use this incident as a hallmark legal case against such harvesting. Matthew was requested to write up a report on the incident, which Mark will forward to UC General Counsel.
Paul Weakliem reported that someone entered an unlocked office and stole a laptop, mouse, and case. This laptop had been locked down with a Kensington style cable, so the thief came prepared with the necessary cutters. Paul was requested to forward this information to CSF so that the rest of the computing support people on campus would be aware of this incident.
Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule