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
spacer
           
spacer
spacer
spacer view site index contact OIT staff
spacer
spacer
  OIT Home > Committees > ITPG > Meetings > ITPG Meeting Minutes 12/08/99
spacer spacer
 

ITPG Meeting Minutes December 8, 1999

 

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

  spacer
spacer University of California Santa Barbara Home Page
  Copyright 2003-2017 The Regents of the University of California, All Rights Reserved
Web contactTerms of UseAccessibility
Last modified: 10/19/2007
  spacer