CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > 1998-2003 Minutes > April 16, 2001 AC4 Minutes

Agenda

1. Approval of Minutes
2. Report from the Education Subcommittee
3. Report from the Research Subcommittee
4. Campus Wireless Deployment Policy
5. Statement of Expectation of Faculty Computer Ownership
6. Allocation Policy for ITF Funding

Minutes

Excused: Jack Farrell, John Meyer, and Zack O'Donnell.

Absent: Mary Jo Anderson, Matthew Bishop, Lamar Heystek, Dorothea Howe, Jennifer Ramesh, Peter Jay Salzman, Kevin Smith, and Pat Turner.

Staff to the Council: Randy Moory and Babette Schmitt.

I. Approval of Minutes - Chair Plant

Chair Plant asked the Council if it had changes to the minutes of the meeting for March 19, 2001. Plant asked for clarification from Member Matthews regarding the Course Management System Subcommittee recommendation for AC4 to review WebCT again in 12 months. Member Matthews replied that no specific protocol for that review was recommended by the Subcommittee. The Council approved the minutes as submitted.

Chair Plant asked Council if there were any changes to the minutes from the Joint AC4-AdC3 meeting. Plant summarized the actions from the Joint Meeting. The Councils recommended that MyUCDavis become a Tier 1 system and that Bob Loessberg-Zahl and Harry Matthews be added to the New Business Architecture Steering Committee. Vice Provost Bruno informed the Council that Internal Auditor Abby Zubov asked to be added to the New Business Architecture Steering Committee. The Council concurred with her addition. The Council approved the minutes as submitted.

Plant reported that the Education Subcommittee submitted its recommendation on printing in the student computing labs to the Academic Senate. The Academic Senate has not responded with its review.

Chair Tripathi reported that the subcommittee is working on three issues, bandwidth, software licensing, and server support for committees. The committee is researching the network capacity to support the research mission. To date, there is little demand for bandwidth in excess of 10mb/sec. Physics needs more bandwidth and has obtained a restricted use 1Gbit bandwidth network connection to .gov and .edu domains. The subcommittee is considering a questionnaire to the faculty to obtain more information.

The subcommittee is assessing the need for additional site licensing for software. The subcommittee found that the current list of software offered to the campus through the IET site-licensing coordinator, web site offers a significant resources and communication of its availability to the campus is necessary.

The subcommittee is working to obtain servers to support the needs of campus academic committees. Academic committees expressed interest in obtaining access to their own sites through MyUCDavis. There is also the need to obtain servers to host their web sites. Vice Provost Bruno contacted Leslie Hayes in the Chancellor's Office and will contact Jeff Gibeling to address the issue.

Council asked about the cost of obtaining a one Gigabit network. Tripathi replied that the cost was approximately $30,000 for installation and a monthly fee based on the number of users. Vice Provost Bruno added that use of this connection is a very restricted connection since it actually has more capacity that the entire backbone for the campus.

Council asked whether software obtained through the software license coordinator include the media and manuals. Council members replied that the license, media and documentation are purchase separately.

Vice Provost Bruno recommended that the Council begin consideration of policy for deployment of wireless network on the campus. Several issues need to be addressed in the policy:

• Standards - the IEEE 802.11(b) standard for wireless uses the same bandwidth spectrum (2.4 GHz) as other devices. This is an unregulated frequency band that mobile telephones, cell phones, microwave ovens, stereo speakers and research equipment uses. The campus needs to consider standards for the equipment that operates in this bandwidth on the campus.
• Security - communication between the wireless client and the access point is in the clear. There is the WEP encryption standard that provides between 40 and 128 bits of encryption depending on the capability of the equipment. The encryption algorithm has already been broken. The campus needs to consider how to secure wireless transmissions and whether to allow access to administrative systems on a wireless network.
• Interference - all wireless devices operate in the unregulated frequency band. The campus needs to consider guidance for deploying wireless networks so that they don't interfere with each other. Other devices also operate in this frequency band and the campus needs to consider how to control interference between devices. Campus guidance should establish what devices have priority.
• Obsolescence - the equipment standard for wireless is changing rapidly. The frequency band will change to a higher 5.5 GHz standard within 18 to 24 months. Investment in current wireless systems will be stranded. The campus policy should consider how to address these stranded investments.

Vice Provost Bruno summarized how other Universities addressed the wireless. Bruno reviewed wireless policies from UCAR (University Center for Atmospheric Research), the University of Indiana, Carnegie Mellon University, Lehigh, the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department at UC Berkeley, the UC Santa Cruz. Bruno explained how each of these Universities dealt with the issues identified above. Bruno suggested that the Council guide the development of the policy.

Council commented about the security risks associated with the "Apple Airport" access points. Members also asked about the interference issue. Bruno replied that interference between wireless LANs could be controlled with proper system layout using the channels that do not overlap. Council expressed concern about the interference with research projects.

Council asked who should start the policy development. Vice Provost Bruno recommended that a small group be formed to draft a policy. Council asked Vice Provost Bruno to recommend members of the group for the Council to consider.

Chair Plant reported to Council, the recommendation from the Information Technology Policy Board for the Council to consider a statement of expectation of faculty computer ownership. Plant reported that it is the sentiment of the Provost that a computer is essential infrastructure for the faculty to carry out the mission of the University. Chair Plant presented the Council with guidance on what might be considered in the statement of expectation. The statement would be analogous to the statement of expectation for student computer ownership. Chair Plant proposed statement would not provide faculty with an entitlement for a computer.

Council asked why the ITPB is pushing for the policy. Chair Plant replied that the issue of the faculty having a computer is an interest of the Academic Senate. Comments from Members suggested that there should not be such a policy in writing and that the faculty should have an entitlement to a computer at the University. Other members suggested that faculty requests for computers were diminishing, but faculty still have a concern about upgrading their computers.

Points raised by Council members supporting the need for the faculty to have computers included:

• All faculty need to be launched properly.
• The University needs to support the faculty research.
• Concern of the Academic Senate and Provost is the computer resources necessary to support the instructional mission of the faculty.
• The need for faculty to have technology if the University expects them to use technology in instruction.
• Competition with other Universities for faculty.

The Council moved to have the Education Subcommittee address a statement of computer ownership for faculty and recommend a policy for the Council to consider.

Chair Plant reported to the Council that the Steering Committee met to establish criteria for considering use of ITF funds. Plant suggested that primary considerations of the Council should be:

• Funding allocations should only be made in conjunction with the budget cycles.
• Council needs to balance the need for "bread and butter" projects with "gee whiz project" request.
• Incrementalism should be avoided.
• The Council could consider holding some funds for contingencies.

Chair Plant gave the Council an overview of the discussions from the Steering Committee. Plant advised the Council that it will need to consider block grants to the Deans, funding to augment the IUC supported projects, and special projects generated by the Council or its subcommittees. The Council will need to consider individual requests for specific projects at its May meeting.

Bob Loessberg-Zahl provided the Council with a handout defining the process and dates for the budget reviews. Loessberg-Zahl suggested that Council deliberations during this period might consider several requests for funding including:

• Vice Provost Turner - one-time grants to academic units for instructional technology projects
• General use classrooms
• Continuation costs of OIET infrastructure projects
• My UC Davis, and
• Support of the implementation of the Student Computer Ownership Expectation.

Council asked if it would be requested to review proposals at its May 21 meeting. Loessberg-Zahl replied yes and they will try to get proposals out to the members before the meeting. Council asked about the biennial project review. Loessberg-Zahl replied that the Tier 1 and 2 projects reports give the Councils the opportunity to develop a more clear picture of funding requests by having it all on one page. Council also asked about funds other than ITF. Loessberg-Zahl replied that the Council would be asked to consider all projects related to instruction, independent of the funding source.

Council commented it was important to get an institutional history of on-going projects and a candid evaluation of the impact of projects funded in the past.