About OIT About the OIT
Directories Directories
Connect to Network Connect to Network
Network Services Network Services
Security IT Security
Voice Services Voice Services
Cable TV Cable Television
Computing Computing
Information Resources Information Resources
Committees IT Committees
Jobs IT Jobs at UCSB
spacer spacer
spacer Office of Information Technology  
spacer view site index contact OIT staff
  OIT Home > Committees > ITPG > Meetings > ITPG Meeting Minutes 11/15/01
spacer spacer

ITPG Meeting Minutes November 15, 2001


Present: Mark Aldenderfer, Arlene Allen, Art Battson, Larry Carver, Glenn Davis, John Davis, Doug Drury, Matt Dunham, Rick Johnson, Bill Koseluk, Shea Lovan, Elise Meyer, Bruce Miller, Alan Moses, Linda Moskovits, Joan Murdoch, Fuzzy Rogers, Deborah Scott, Jason Simpson, Jamie Sonsini, Bob Sugar, Craig Welsh

Context Redux

Champions for proposals presented their cases as follows.

  • #26, #23, and #10: Open Access Labs

    Bill Koseluk, Deborah Scott, and Larry Carver presented a case for open access computing. Open access computing is not currently a funded service. Current open access labs have never been funded, and obtain old equipment when the instructional labs upgrade their machines. These labs are heavily used and are in constant use. The 50 Netstations currently spread out in various locations around campus are underpowered, and there are not enough machines available to meet the need of the original goals. The proposal included new facilities of 25 seats each in Phelps Hall, Davidson Library, and Embarcadero Hall. The Library facility could be made available 7/24 and the Embarcadero Hall facility would provide open access facilities in Isla Vista. These facilities should be considered as an instruction related service. There was some discussion of whether the computers would be hand-me-down equipment from the instructional labs or new thin clients. Another service provider mentioned that their cost to support a single seat was $750/year.

    Items 25 – 15 were either withdrawn, combined, or tabled as indicated below:

  • #25: Campus-wide rapid development environment for wireless enabling services and integrating DATA from disparate services (withdrawn)
  • #24: Converting technologies into true campus-wide services (withdrawn)
  • #23: Netstation upgrades (combined with #26 above)
  • #22: Digital ID system (withdrawn)
  • #21 Large-scale supercomputing facility (withdrawn)
  • #20: Campus web portal (became #3 and #4 in new list)
  • #19: Assistance with IT ADA Compliance (withdrawn)
  • #18: Campus web presence (tabled)
  • #17: Computer security audit service for applications, databases, systems and network (withdrawn)
  • #16: Videoconferencing (withdrawn)
  • #15: Equipment delivery service (withdrawn)
  • #14: Wireless Networking Prototype for Campus-Wide Wireless Network

    Bruce Miller outlined the growing interest in wireless communications on campus, and broke down a suggested approach into two components: (1) To get a handle on what is already in place in order to manage growth and protect research, and (2) to set up a prototype network. One of the goals of the prototype wireless network would be to resolve through experience the issues of diagnostics, security, and dependability. Some commented that much of that type of information was already available on the web. It was also mentioned that this could be an opportunity to provide wireless networking in public areas where it wasn’t clear who the sponsoring service provider would be. It was suggested that a working group be formed to develop the proposal further.

    Items 13-10 were either withdrawn, combined, or tabled as indicated below:

  • #13: NGB helpdesk and the technical support for department network administrators (withdrawn)
  • #12: Expanding videostream services by Instructional Resources (withdrawn)
  • ##11: Converting the Library-funded Proxy service into a centrally-funded campus-wide service (withdrawn)
  • #10: Staff support for new open access labs (combined with #26 above)
  • #9: Network Funding Gap

    Elise Meyer’s presentation of the IntraBuilding Wiring Project (IBW), New Generation Backbone (NGB), and Wide Area Networking (WAN) was broken into three segments so that each initiative could be prioritized separately.

    Funding for the IBW did not stretch far enough, and some projects were redesigned and re-prioritized. 47 projects were submitted for consideration for funding as Year 2 IBW projects with an estimated cost of $3,510,957. $2,072,000 will be available for these projects, leaving a shortfall of $1,438,957.

    NGB is in the middle of phase I, which expands the backbone network service and support to 35 buildings with increased bandwidth, cheaper interfaces, consolidation of routing equipment and expertise, and aggregation of building connections locally rather than remotely. Phase II will add an additional 60 buildings and upgrade the connection speed of some of the initial buildings. There is no funding gap during 2001/2002, but will be a gap of $435,057 the following year. The Network Funding Model would address the funding gap of $349,790 in the third year if it is implemented by FY 2003/2004.

    WAN supports connection to CalREN-2, Abilene (Internet 2) and the commercial Internet, membership to UCAID, maintenance and augmentation of our existing backbone network cable plant, and support for the existing campus backbone. CalREN-2 expires November 2002 and will be replaced by an Optical Network Infrastructure (ONI). This change will take advantage of unused dark fiber and cheap wavelengths to provide expanded bandwidth at a lower cost, as well as providing the campus with a possible additional route and connection to the backbone. Additional costs for this “last Mile” construction include construction of a second route out of campus, new border connecting equipment, and shared costs for backbone equipment. These costs are at this point unknown.

    A question was raised about whether the Internet 2 funding could be used for non-network related expenses and the answer given was that there were specific guidelines from UCOP on how these funds could be used.

  • #8: Software Depot

    Matt Dunham indicated that the Software Depot started off as a “donated” service, that has grown considerably in all aspects. And it can no longer provide the necessary level of service for the demand that exists today. A Software Licensing Subcommittee was formed, and its recommendation has been broken up into two phases. Phase one includes one-time funding needed to enhance Software Depot’s online shopping and order management system. Many of the resource-consuming components of the service will have to be discontinued if funding is not available for Phase One. Phase two includes ongoing funding is requested to provide for the expansion of the service into an Office of Software Licensing, consisting of “required” and “desired” services, online ordering, assistance in software licensing agreements, and meeting auditing standards for licensing records for software. This Phase Two development would require 2.0 FTE: a mid-level CNT-class position, and a mid-level AA-class position. Space for these positions would also be needed. The establishment of an advisory committee was recommended to provide limited consulting and direction of service offerings. Funding for the proposal is unknown. Phase One would take approximately one year to implement. Coordination of Phase Two would begin following Phase One. Without extra-departmental funding, major components of the service will be phased out beginning January 2002.

  • #7: Evaluation of Course Development, Management and Delivery Technologies

    The OIT would create a task force composed of faculty and selected staff to evaluate how a campus-wide web-based course development, management, and delivery system can be implemented at UCSB. Their charge would be to develop specific recommendations for the selection of such a system, involving comparisons of existing commercial products and also including discussion of the full range of existing campus resources and how solutions can be optimally combined with any new service. The task force will consult with Academic Senate committees that oversee information technology and teaching enhancements, and gauge the level of faculty interest in the deployment of these products. Finally, they will develop a robust statement of the full costs of the deployment of the system, including estimates of the costs of acquisition, staffing, and maintenance as well as faculty and staff training in the use of the system. No resources aside from faculty and staff time are presently required. OIT will provide staff support for activities of the task force. An initial set of recommendations could be offered to the campus by the end of this academic year. Deployment of a system will be contingent upon funding.

  • #6: Information Technology staffing levels (withdrawn)

Further discussion of remaining issues was scheduled for the next meeting, November 27, 2001.

Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule

spacer University of California Santa Barbara Home Page
  Copyright © 2003-2018 The Regents of the University of California, All Rights Reserved
Web contactTerms of UseAccessibility
Last modified: 10/19/2007