|
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COORDINATING FRAMEWORK:
|
 AdC3 Home | Meetings | 5/7/01 |
|
Monday, May 7, 20013:00-4:30 p.m.203 Mrak Hall Agenda and Minutes Agenda
MinutesAbsent: John Meyer, and Celeste Rose. Excused: Dave Shelby, Carol Wall, and Abby Zubov. Staff to the Council: Randy Moory and Babette Schmitt. Guest: Kevin Rhodes. The meeting began at 3:00 p.m.
The Council approved the minutes as submitted. Randy Moory announced that the UC Davis version of the UCOP Electronic Communication Policy (ECP) was recently completed and submitted for informal review. This informal review process ends on May 18 after which the comments will be addressed by the drafting workgroup. A proposed policy will then be presented to the campus for formal review through the Chancellor's Office. Moory stated that the workgroup started by reviewing the campus email policy (PPM 310-16) and then incorporated the new provisions of the UCOP Electronic Communications Policy. The draft policy also attempts to integrate many other campus policies that overlap with provisions in the UC Electronic Communications Policy. These policies include the UC Davis Computer and Network Acceptable Use Policy and (hopefully) the UC Davis Network Security Policy. There are significant differences between the ECP and the current campus policies. The ECP includes many provisions for privacy, new stipulations regarding consensual and non-consensual access, and security provisions from BFB IS-3 that apply to electronic communications systems. The policy also includes a completely new exhibit that addresses the roles and responsibilities of system administrators. Council members asked about the most controversial provisions of the draft ECP. Moory replied that the policy acceptable use provisions include a misuse stipulation that addresses violent and obscene materials. Council members commented that this is a growing problem on the campus. The policy's new section addressing system administrators may also be somewhat controversial. The draft ECP defines a continuum of responsibility for campus computer and network systems, from the Vice Provost, Information and Educational Technology to campus system administrators. The ECP requires that system administrators acknowledge their understanding of the campus and University policies. This annual testimonial would then be filed and saved by Information and Educational Technology. Handouts: Randy Moory provided the Council with a summary of Tier 1 and Tier 2 project reports received by IET from the Vice Chancellors. The summary identified the following key information about administrative campus systems: the Vice Chancellor responsible for the system, the name of the system, modifications proposed for fiscal year 2001-2002 and projected modifications for fiscal years 2002-2004. Moory also offered an overview of the draft evaluation criteria that the Council briefly identified at its April meeting. These criteria require further work and refinement. Council members discussed the definitions of Tier 1 and Tier 2 systems. Members asked how the projects on the list were assigned Tier 1 or Tier 2 status. Moory replied that the system owners themselves proposed the status of each system reflected on the summary. The campus Administrative Computing Plan (and P&P 200-45) defines Tier 1 systems as those that have broad impact on the campus. Members indicated that Tier 1 and Tier 2 systems should also be defined as systems that meet campus standards and are eligible for general campus funding support. There was general agreement on the need to establish more specific criteria to define a system tier status. Chair Smiley suggested that a small workgroup be formed to address what the standards would be for defining a system status. The workgroup includes Associate Vice Chancellor Allred, Director Moffitt, Director Loessberg-Zahl, and a representative for Vice Chancellor Hamilton. Director Moffitt will chair the workgroup. Chair Smiley asked the Council members for their comments on the draft evaluation criteria. Members suggested the addition of the following criteria: Members commented that these assessment criteria are to be applied at the program level (as opposed to the global campus perspective the Council takes). The Council discussed how to undertake an evaluation of principles for a broader range of computer systems and campus departments. The Council commented about the importance of a broad view and the importance of looking at synergies between projects that might support a broader mission. Members commented about the potential mutual impact of campus systems and a future UC Davis enterprise portal. A major role of the New Business Architecture (NBA) Steering Committee will be to coordinate efforts of campus departments. An important role for the Steering Committee will be to set campus standards and provide guidance to the campus departments. Handout: Remote Access Pilot Report (PowerPoint presentation) Kevin Rhodes, Information and Educational Technology, reported on the results of the pilot project to extend campus remote access services to select areas outside of the Davis area. The pilot used services from PacBell to extend the campus dial-in modem pool to the Sacramento metropolitan area and the Winter/Vallejo area. The pilot project was targeted to 1,000 users. However, only 366 expressed interest and 88 actually ever used the system. Rhodes reported that the pilot's goal was to address several issues, especially regarding the provisioning of access to remote users. The pilot service did work well and provided seamless integration to the campus network. Rhodes recommended that the campus: Rhodes informed the Council that the out-of-area remote access service was not used because users already had an Internet Service Provider (ISP) that already meets their needs and were reluctant to change to the campus system for the duration of the pilot even if it were free. The existing modem pools is also seeing a reduction in use as local users become aware of and start using other alternatives from outside providers. Such alternatives include cable and DSL service, which provide faster connections. Based on current trends, Rhodes expects to see the use of the campus modem pool decrease to 20% of today's usage within the next 18 to 24 months. Council members commented that private sector ISP failures could impact a user's ability to access networked resources. Some members noted that the campus should provide some level of base service, either as a backup plan for ISP failures or for those who opt not to open an account with an ISP. Rhodes noted that the existing equipment should be able to provide basic access for a long time. Asked about students' expectations, Rhodes replied that there is a growing expectation for broadband service. The new student computer ownership expectation may accelerate this expectation for higher bandwidth service. Rhodes commented that the campus might be able to help broker better and cheaper service with private sector suppliers. Rhodes asked the Council to provide guidance on the next steps: Should the campus set a sunset date to retire the 56K remote access service with a provision for a safety net? Or should we upgrade the campus' current remote access service? Handout: Data Administration: Future Tasks, Benefits, and Funding (Word document) Mary Jo Anderson provided the Council with a brief overview of the handout. The handout includes a cost-benefit assessment of the Data Warehouse Project. Anderson reported that the benefits are primarily improvements in service (e.g. the ability to do faster and new analyses) as well as some quantitative benefits. Anderson reported that the report identifies approximately $90,000 in savings to the campus. Discussion of the report will continue at the next meeting. This item was postponed until the next Council meeting in June.
|
|
