The Committee on Computing & Communications (COMP)
met on
IN ATTENDANCE:
Ken Goldberg, IEOR/EECS
Marti Hearst, SIMS
Yehuda Kalay, Architecture
Steven Louie, Physics
Arthur Ogus, Math
James Siegrist, Physics
Michael Tarter, Public Health
Allison Bloodworth, Graduate Student
Representative
Also attending: Jack McCredie, AVC-IT & CIO,
Professor Merrill Shanks, SSCL-IST
Introductory Remarks and Review of Minutes:
Ken welcomed Marti Hearst, from the School of Information Management and
Systems (SIMS), joining COMP for the Spring term. He
also welcomed Jack McCredie, AVC-IST, with whom Ken
has been working on the IT Strategic Plan, and Merrill Shanks, from the Social
Science Computing Laboratory’s Computer-assisted Survey Methods Program (CSM),
who is working with COMP on its faculty survey project. Ken presented an
overview of the development of the IT-Strategic Plan, and said that the focus
of the group for this semester would be on a plan to meet the needs of the
campus research community.
Minutes were approved as presented, after a motion to approve by Arthur Ogus.
The next meeting date was set for Tuesday, February 10, from 4-6 pm, at 310
Stephens Hall.
UC Department Chairs Survey Draft
Ken explained the purpose of the survey as information gathering in support of the IT Strategic Plan. He said the survey would be limited
to Department Chairs at this time, and that it would be kept short to encourage
participation, and quantitative so that results could be counted.
Merrill opened the discussion of the draft survey with a question regarding the
confidentiality of data gathered by the survey, and the necessity of including
a statement on the survey form letting departments know whether or not their
data would be openly shared. After discussion, the committee decided that the
survey information would not be confidential, particularly after Jack pointed
out that budget and FTE information is available online for all departments.
Jack promised to send the url
for this campus website to COMP members. Merrill also recommended that the
survey be tested in a personal interview with a few department Chairs before
distributing it to all.
The survey questions were discussed; Yehuda said it was not clear to him that
the questions were going to get at the important facts. For example, question
#9 asks for information on computers used for research, and Yehuda said he did
not know how anyone could decide how much a computer is used for research vs teaching.
Other suggestions were that question #5 and #6 be combined, that a question be
added “How many people would you need to have good IT support?”, and that
checkboxes be added to make it easier to respond to questions such as #11.
Question #10 seemed to be superfluous to some, who felt it could be answered more specifically in question #11. Marti
recommended that some breakdown of research funding be requested; campus vs out-of-state.
Yehuda said he thinks the level of IT on campus has declined over the years,
and would like to find a way to measure that. Jack described a study done in
1998 by the Commission on Campus Computing on instructional technology and
administrative computing, with one outcome being that $1 million was permanently
allocated to departments for computing support. The details on this allocation
could provide some idea of what the situation is now.
Merrill noted that he thinks that departments rely heavily on out-of-state
money and that the state does not provide much support for research computing.
Jack said he thinks that the basic assumption on campus is that research is
supported by grants, and that this is important for the survey to reveal. Ken
said it appears the committee is changing the terminology from research to
faculty computing, and he thinks that both teaching and research computing
should be combined in the survey. He also reminded committee members that the
survey is aimed at the future.
Jack McCredie presented a list of Potential Strategic
IT Initiatives for UC that he prepared for the purpose of gathering feedback
from various campus committees and individuals on what top priorities are for
the next 5-10 years. He said it is important to involve more people in the
process of setting these major goals. Ken suggested that COMP members look over
the list and pick their top five for future discussion.
Jim suggested that the desired results of the survey need to be considered
before finalizing the survey questions. Marti commented that she thinks it’s
important to collect examples of time wasted through IT failure and lack of
support. Jim added that Jack identified the big perceptual problem that grants
support research.
Ken said he realized that the survey needs further work, and Merrill agreed
that the survey should be re-vamped, taking into consideration the strategic
goals outlined in Jack’s list and other remarks made by the committee. Jim
outlined a matrix of reporting issues: the current status, comparison with
other campuses, the history behind the IT situation. He said the survey should
capture the needs and future priorities for IT support for academic
departments. Ken said he thinks its possible to get an
idea of the current status from the survey.
Jim recommended that the survey be tested by giving it to a small number of
people and discussing the results at the next meeting on February 10. Merrill
and Ken agreed to revise the survey and send the next draft to COMP before that
time. Jack said he would look at the Educause survey
to see what numbers of support staff other universities have.
The meeting adjourned at
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Computing & Communications (COMP) met on Tuesday, February
10, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. in 310 Stephens Hall. Chair Ken Goldberg presided.
IN ATTENDANCE:
Ken Goldberg, IEOR/EECS
Marti Hearst, SIMS
Terrence Hendershott, Business
Steven Louie, Physics
Arthur Ogus, Math
Michael Tarter, Public Health
Allison Bloodworth, Graduate Student
Representative
Also attending: Jack McCredie, AVC-IT & CIO,
Professor Merrill Shanks, SSCL-IST, Phyllis Hoffman and Katherine Mitchell,
Center for Organizational Effectiveness (COrE)
Introductory Remarks and Review of Minutes:
Ken introduced the guests from COrE, who appeared on
the agenda. Katherine Mitchell prepared some planning information for the IT
Strategic Plan, which she would present later in the meeting.
Minutes were approved as submitted, after a motion to approve by Allison Bloodworth, seconded by Steven Louie. The next meeting date
was set for Tuesday, March 9, from 3-5 pm, at 310 Stephens Hall.
Ken polled the members present for their interest in remaining on the committee
for the next year, and found that most members would like to continue. Marti
Hearst said she had some other interests to pursue. Ken said he would like to
remain, but not as Chair.
Both Ken and Jack updated the committee on their presentation of the IT Ð SP at
the e-Berkeley Steering Committee meeting on January 29, 2004. Jack presented the
list of IT Priorities he had prepared, and Ken presented the efforts COMP is
making to develop the plan, focusing on research computing at this time. The
feedback from the e-Berkeley Steering Committee was useful, according to Ken.
Paul Gray commented on the distribution of technical support, wanting to know
what the situation is. He said the Department Chairs might not be able to
answer some of these questions.
Draft Survey Questions on Academic Computing
The draft survey (rev.
· Question #5 and #6 to include whether IT support is adequate
· Remove the word
ÒexemplaryÓ from question #10
· Add a question to #9 asking whether any other university is doing something
better
· Move #9 up on
the survey list, titling it as Òreally importantÓ
· Add a question regarding the quality of network connectivity in the
department.
Ken said he feels that the committee is better satisfied with the survey, and
asks the members whether this is so. Those present seemed to agree. Ken sketches
out the results that might come from the survey, such as a report on the survey
findings, and said he would like to move forward. Ken said he would work with
Merrill to refine the questions, and thanked Merrill for helping with the
survey. Merrill asked for a list of academic departments, and Sheila said she
would find out how the Senate Chair, Ron Gronsky,
would like to handle sending the survey to department chairs. Ken asked COMP
members to send the new version of the survey via email to their department
chairs before the general distribution, to sample responses.
IT Strategic Plan
Katherine Mitchell gave a brief background on COrE, where
she has been working as a consultant on campus since 1987. She described her
experience with strategic planning, and said she has been very encouraged by
the work being done by
COMP.
Katherine provided a handout that outlines steps in strategic planning. The ÒWorking Definition of IT Strategic PlanningÓ
was discussed, and it was decided that Òover the next
five yearsÓ would be added to the definition. The
ten-year scope initially set by COMP seemed too long to be able to predict
changes in resources
and technology. Michael Tarter said he thinks there is a benefit
to limited economies, in that it makes improvement of what exists
a necessity.
Katherine suggested that trends in research might help guide IT planning, but
Arthur said he thinks it would be a mistake to try to predict research
directions. Jack offered the idea of external trends, such as Internet2 and
NLR, and said it is important to determine how UCB wants to be engaged in these
nationwide projects.
As Katherine presented the ideas shown in her diagrams, some points were
discussed and clarified. The idea of Òguiding principlesÓ for IT on campus brought up a question from Arthur as
to whether the budget sitaution would change those
principles. Jack remarked that he thinks the ChancellorÕs
priorities would remain the same. These
priorities are listed at http://cio.chance.berkeley.edu/chancellor/budget/intro.htm He added
that IST is working on the scope of
current planning, which is very large at this time and needs to be clarified.
Katherine had prepared a diagram (based on KenÕs
previous diagram of how campus groups work together) showing the committees
involved in planning for key constituent groupÕs IT
needs. She recommended that the committee chairs shown on the diagram meet
three times to discuss the first three phases of the process described by the
handout, and concluded by offering strategic planning questions to explore with
the constituent groups.
Jack addressed the IT guiding principle regarding research support, which for
some time has placed responsibility with the individual researcher in a
decentralized organizational model. Terrence said he thinks that things have
changed and that in a situation with fewer resources there is more need to work
together. Ken remarked that VC Burnside had announced funding for
interdisciplinary research, going along with that trend. He said he thinks that
examples of this kind of cooperation need to be gathered, and Katherine
volunteered to find some. Guiding Principles for IT will appear on the next
COMP meeting agenda.
Jack handed out an article he wrote on Strategic IT Planning,
which has been posted on the IST website at
http://istpub.berkeley.edu:4201/bcc/Spring2004/strategicitplan.html He
recommended that COMP members visit the website to gather information about IST
operations, and asked for comments on the article.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Computing & Communications (COMP) met on Tuesday, March 9,
2004, at 3:00 p.m. in 310 Stephens Hall. Chair Ken Goldberg presided.
IN ATTENDANCE:
Ken Goldberg, IEOR/EECS
Allison Bloodworth, Graduate Student
Representative
Marti Hearst, SIMS
Terrence Hendershott, Business
Yehuda Kalay, Architecture
Arthur Ogus, Math
Jim Siegrist, Physics
Michael Tarter, Public Health
Also attending: Jack McCredie, AVC-IT & CIO,
Professor Merrill Shanks, SSCL-IST, Katherine Mitchell, Center for
Organizational Effectiveness (COrE)
Introductory Remarks and Review of Minutes:
Ken said that the first part of the meeting would be spent doing an experiment
with planning led by Katherine Mitchell. Ken referred to the packet of
background material that Katherine prepared, and said that this would provide
COMP members with context for the exercise. Katherine would like to see how
well the exercise works, and will use feedback from COMP to refine the
process for future use.
Katherine said that during March, she and Jack will meet with IT-related
committees across campus to develop a set of guiding principles, a short list
of priorities, initiatives and critical issues. Then on April 6 and May 18, the
chairs of these committees will meet to review the lists and principles. Jack
added that the goal of these efforts is to create a comprehensive list of IT
priorities for the new Chancellor.
Ken said that since the last COMP meeting there has been a good amount of
interest in the Strategic Plan; Ken met with Beth Burnside and other campus
administrators, and reported on the direction of the plan and the survey, and
he also attended the Educational Technology Committee meeting with Jack and
Katherine to give a similar report.
Katherine then led COMP members through the experimental exercise, asking them
to write on Post-it
notes three words or phrases that describe IT at Berkeley now, and three words
or phrases that describe what they would like to see in five years regarding IT
at Berkeley. She posted each group of these on large, separate sheets of paper
on the wall. Next, Katherine asked those present to think of means for getting from the present IT
status to the future, using five Post-it notes. Katherine categorized the
responses into categories: major challenges, funding, networking, support,
standards and software.
Katherine asked COMP members to think of Òguiding principlesÓ for the changes they envision, and write a few
words describing them on Post-it notes. A list of other universitiesÕ
guiding principles had been collected by Shel
Waggener, and these were reviewed. A discussion of these principles proceeded,
comparing them to the ones on the list ÒThe Essence
of BerkeleyÓ from the UC Berkeley Strategic Academic
Plan (2003); it was generally felt that the Berkeley principles were different
and seemed to be real principles. The categories outlined in ShelÕs list were titled Òaccessibility,
adaptability, balance, data driven, managed, openness, process centered,
security, supportableÓ. Some
felt that these were not principles, and that their concepts of guidelines
would not fit these one-word categories. Some examples of guiding
principles:
ÒManage the
tension between every day needs and innovative ideas.Ó
ÒBuild on the
beginning; donÕt bring in principles from other universities.Ó
ÒUse IT to
make knowledge and ideas accessible.Ó
Marti introduced the idea of becoming a leader in open source software, encouraging its use. Ken
remarked that other tensions exist, such as the one between openness and
security, funded and not-funded, open source and proprietary. He noted that
these kinds of things were left out of the Berkeley principles.
Katherine suggested that she work with Sheila to bring forward the initial list
of ideas on where UCÕs IT situation should be in five
years. Ken said he would bring forward the notes on guiding principles, for
further discussion at the next meeting. Ken thanked Katherine for her work on
this process.
Draft Survey Questions on Academic Computing
Ken said he would like to have convergence on the survey questions today, so that
it can be sent out next week. Merrill reported that he had incorporated
changes, based on comments
from those present. Three department Chairs have taken the survey
as a test before sending it out to all Chairs; Physics, Architecture and SIMS.
The results were available at the meeting.
The discussion focused on the issue of whether results from departments with
wide variations in amount of IT support can be compared. Ken said he felt it
was very interesting to compare the results; and that the disparity in IT
resources was made more obvious. Arthur added that the results also could
dispel false speculation, such as that the Physics department has grant money
to spend on support. It was suggested
that survey question #8 be rephrased to ask ÒWhat
proportion of your budget is allocated to IT?Ó.
The thought that the survey should be tailored to support the desired result was
again raised. Merrill said he thought the basic question revolved around the
principle of decentralized funding of IT resources. Terrence questioned why it couldnÕt be handled the same as library support. After
further discussion of these topics, Ken said he proposed going forward with the
survey, and asked for a motion and vote. Terrence so moved,
and the motion was passed by a 5 Ð 1 vote. Merrill said he would provide a ÒfinalÓ version of the survey,
and send to COMP members before it is issued. Ken asked about the logistics of
tabulation; Merrill volunteered his departmentÕs
services. It was decided that the survey would be sent as soon as possible, and
that Sheila would investigate setting up an email account for the responses.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
The next meeting will be held on Thursday, April 8, from 12 Ð 2 pm in 103
Stephens.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Computing & Communications (COMP) met on Thursday, April
8, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. in 310 Stephens Hall. Chair Ken Goldberg presided.
IN ATTENDANCE:
Ken Goldberg, IEOR/EECS
Allison Bloodworth, Graduate Student
Representative
Marti Hearst, SIMS
Steven Louie, Physics
Nipam Patel, Integrative Biology
Michael Tarter, Public Health
Also attending: Jack McCredie, AVC-IT & CIO,
Professor Merrill Shanks, SSCL-IST, Brian Donohue, Business Contracts, Linda
Howe-Steiger, ITS Tech Transfer Program, Dennis Hengstler, Jill Martin, and Helen Kelly, Data Stewardship
Council members
Introductory Remarks and Review of Minutes:
Ken opened the meeting by asking for a motion to thank
Ken said that a final meeting this semester needs to be held to complete the IT
Strategic Plan process for COMP, and the date of May 12, from 11 am - 1 pm was
chosen. Ken said that he would provide lunch at the meeting, as a means of
thanking all who had worked with him during his chairmanship of the committee.
He invited Jack McCredie,
Ken described the IT Strategic Planning process up to this point; presentations
modeled on the exercise given to COMP at the March 9 meeting were made at many
of the IT-related committees across campus. The results of these meetings were
brought to a planning meeting of the committee chairs, held on April 6, where
ideas were consolidated into a list of critical issues relating to IT on
campus. Ken asked Jack to present the
next topic on the agenda.
IT Strategic Plan followup discussion
Jack introduced a followup exercise, asking the
committee members to participate in the process of rating the fourteen
categories of "critical issues", listed on large sheets of paper
posted on the wall. He said this would aid the process of defining guiding
principles for the IT Strategic Plan. The ratings were from 0 - 4 (highest), and members were asked
to place a colored dot on each of the fourteen "critical issues" at
the level of importance they chose.
Jack went over a few of the issues, explaining the categories "Learning
and Teaching" and "Communication". There was a brief discussion
regarding the categories. Michael said that research did not appear to be part
of the list; Jack replied that all of the issues address and support research,
weaving through all the topics, i.e., as in the idea of security - a necessary
element of research. Ken also expressed that these topics will lead off into
other areas; and that the process of future discussion will refine what has
been distilled at this point. He asked whether COMP felt comfortable with
participating in the exercise, and it was agreed to do so.
After the exercise was done, Ken reiterated that futher
refinement would be necessary before sending out a campus-wide survey regarding
these issues. He said the way the issues are stated is in some cases positive,
while some are described as obstacles, and suggested changes to wording to make
the statements more consistent.
Jack concluded by saying that it is his intent to provide a list of IT
priorities for the new Chancellor, to be included in the "briefing
book" being prepared by the Chancellor's Cabinet. He said this was a good
time for this process to be going on.
Ken added that the process is a continuing one, that would not end once guiding
principles had been developed; the next step would be to decide how to
accomplish the priorities.
e-Learning Courseware Development
Ken introduced Brian Donohue, from the Business Contracts office, who presented
an historical overview of his work with COMP in 2001 on the development of a
report outlining joint discussions of the e-Learning Policy Committee (chaired
by Alice Agogino) and COMP. Brian handed out copies of the report, and
included an email written by Professor Agogino
announcing that
recommendations from the report had been approved by the
Chancellor and Paul Gray. VC Christina Maslach agreed
to take the lead on the educational technology aspect of the report, and the
Educational Technology Committee chaired by Philip Stark was formed to oversee
the project. Brian said that the second part of the report (2)Infrastructure
(b)e-Learning Copyright, Licensing and Business Office, had not been acted on,
although it had been endorsed by the former COMP committee.
Brian presented the concepts he had presented to COMP in 2001 regarding the
business office - which would "support departments, faculty, lecturers and
graduate students with technical information, financial assistance
opportunities, and business services associated with e-learning." Brian
explained that his goal in bringing this topic to the agenda was to inform new
COMP members, and to ask whether the committee continues to support this
proposal.
Ken asked for a description of the Business Contracts office, saying that he
needs a crisp definition of the difference between that office and the Office
of Technical Licensing. Brian said that he works with departments on all types
of agreements with instructors (excluding those handled by the Sponsored
Projects Office) defining "who owns what", and that he proposes
forming an "alliance office" of outside business partners, who would
find funding for new educational ideas. Marti commented that the idea of
getting funding from outside parties to support curriculum seemed to go against
campus policy, and Ken added that the contrast with MIT's decision to offer
open courses online would not reflect well on UCB. Brian replied that the topic
of a recent campus talk by Al Guskin on the need to
find innovative ways to support development and growth in the university had
aroused interest from the Chancellor and other IT professionals on campus, and
that he thinks the faculty might consider some alternatives to the usual
teaching methods.
Ken thanked Brian for making COMP aware of these concepts, and said that in a
future meeting perhaps the issues could be considered in more detail. He added
that it is important for faculty to understand funding, but that this direction
can't be pursued without considering UCB reputation. He invited Brian back, and
asked that a copy of the article by Al Guskin
"Dealing with the Future Now - Principles for Creating a Vital Campus in a
Climate of Restricted Resources" be sent to COMP
members. (article attached)
Data Stewardship Council draft policy on Data Integration
Data Stewardship Council co-chairs Helen Norris and Dennis Hengstler,
and Jill Martin, Principal Analyst, VC Budget and Finance, presented a draft
version of the new Data Management, Use and Protection Policy. Jill distributed
a summary of the policy, which outlined reasons for having the policy and its
key features. Jill said that most people find the policy provides a means for
all to agree on a uniform way to handle data, and that it articulates
procedures that already exist. She pointed out that the summary statement holds
"each member of the campus community...responsible for the proper
management, use and protection of data under his or her control", and that
the policy specifies what these responsibilities are.
The following discussion centered around what data was being targeted, and how
to determine the extent of responsibility for others' data handling (such as
graduate students working with a professor). Helen provided an example of the
reason for handling all data with care, pointing out the similiarity
to money handling. Marti said some data is sensitive, some not. Jill responded
that the guidelines were made general so that individuals could determine
specific restrictions. Another point made was that data integration across
campus makes policy guidelines more important.
Ken said that he is uncomfortable with the statement that the University of
California is the owner of all UC Berkeley data, and thinks this needs to be
reconsidered. He also said the policy was too abstract, and that examples were
needed. Jill replied that implementation guidelines would be part of the policy
package, and Ken asked for sample agreements on data handling that could be
printed out, signed and filed. Helen
added that the "ownership" statement was pulled from UCOP policy. Ken
asked that COMP be informed about new versions and updates to the policy after
it has gone through the approval process.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 noon
The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 12, from 11 am - 1 pm, in 310
Stephens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Computing & Communications (COMP) met on Wednesday, May
12, 2004, at 11:00 a.m. in 103 Stephens Hall. Chair Ken Goldberg
presided.
IN ATTENDANCE:
Ken Goldberg, IEOR/EECS
Allison Bloodworth, Graduate Student
Representative
Marti Hearst, SIMS
Yehuda Kalay, Architecture
Arthur Ogus, Math
Nipam Patel, Integrative Biology
James Siegrist, Physics
Also attending: Jack McCredie, AVC-IT & CIO,
Professor Merrill Shanks, SSCL-IST, Katherine Mitchell, COrE
Introductory Remarks and Review of Minutes:
Ken said this will be his last meeting as COMP Chair, and that he will continue
as a member next Fall. New co-Chairs will be Dave Messerschmit and Arthur Ogus. Ken went over the minutes
from the April 8th meeting, saying that the IT Strategic Plan was discussed,
and that new developments will be reported today. He mentioned that Brian
Donohue presented information on e-Learning, and Ken asked him to return in the
fall. He pointed out that the Data Stewardship CouncilÕs
Draft policy presented to COMP for review at that meeting raised some concerns,
and has prompted a letter from Dean Leonard, IAS, which will be discussed later
today. The policy was also presented at the e-Berkeley Steering Committee,
where it was held over for further review.
Ken reported on the UC systemwide ITTP (Information
Technology & Telecommunications Policy) committee meeting he attended in Oakland. He said that Alfonso Cardenas from
UCLA rejuvenated the group, and that there is quite a lot of ongoing meeting
activity now. The SAKAI project was on the agenda, and an item about Òtechnology feesÓ, called ÒCourse Materials FeesÓ at UCLAÕs Letters & Science department. Ken said it was an
interesting possibility as a way of coping with budget cuts. Jack McCredie said that 67% of public institutions have such
fees in the range of $100-$200 per year. Another ITTP meeting agenda item
concerned regulations for taking software out of the country. Ken said there is
no policy regarding this at UC now, and there should be one. Ken added that he
provided ITTP members with a copy of the IT Department Chairs survey, and ÒEssence of ITÓ principles, which they were quite
interested in. Ken said that next year COMP should identify someone who will
attend the ITTP meetings.
Ken said that another interesting meeting was the Council of Deans, which
turned out to be very refreshing. Ken, Jack and Katherine attended to present
the IT Strategic Plan, which was well received. The Deans discussed the six
principles developed by campus-wide IT related committees. Jack said that Paul
Gray was pleased with the way the discussion went.
Katherine reported on the reactions to the principles; some Deans expressed
dissatisfaction with the issue of Òprimacy of public serviceÓ in an atmosphere of State budget cuts to UC. Jack
said that the wording of the principles was based on the Strategic Academic
Plan. Katherine answered that the security and reliability point was
unanimously agreed to. Further discussion was centered on reorganizing the
principles. Katherine announced that the principles were now available for
public comment in an on-line survey, and she said she hoped COMP members would
visit
http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey-intro.zgi?p=WEB2HLM8DMRL
The minutes were approved as presented.
IT Strategic Plan followup discussion
Katherine introduced this topic by saying that the principles outlined in the
IT Strategic Plan represent what the new Chancellor will need to know about
current IT needs for teaching and learning, and for research. Major issues
relating to these needs are funding and governance, and security, stability and
ease of access. Arthur added that the system administrators in academic
departments are not supervised,and
that it is difficult to tell whether problems are equipment, software or lack
of expertise. This is not an isolated situation, and appears to be a problem in
several departments. Ken offered the idea of using ITAC as a resource for
investigation into this problem.
Katherine continued by saying she would like to develop a picture of current IT
support for research, as a separate issue; there is no central funding for
research support. She would like to find out what needs to be addressed.
Teaching and learning has received much more attention and the challenges are
much better understood. Merrill offered three categories of research: (1)research on or about IT, (2)research needs at the desktop,
(3) high priority needs concerning shared resources.
Some examples of problems were discussed:
· Being forced to twist things around to use Windows software since thatÕs what most people have.
· Donations of equipment that isnÕt robust or
supported
· There is no way to get equipment updated
· Site licensing Ð too few common tools, lack of standardization.(Ken and Jack remarked that there is a UC-wide effort to
develop group licensing)
· Support is unreliable
· Insufficient backup and data storage.
Jack said that the only centralized research support available is the San Diego
supercomputer, and Internet2 high-bandwidth connectivity. Ken remarked that
this is not something he uses, and that his problems are not solved through
these resources. Ken added that research includes publication, travel,
fund-raising, communication, presentation, archiving, and other day-to-day IT
needs that cross all three categories Merrill listed. After further discussion
Katherine summarized that the problem lies in isolation and lack of central
support. Jim Siegrist stressed that the areas Ken
listed should be included in the plan.
IT Survey Status
Merrill distributed some results he compiled from the 21 responses he received
from the academic department Chairs survey. Merrill explained the tally and
code for identifying responses, and the results were discussed. He said that he
had found that of the 21 departments, one stated that 90% of faculty use
computers; all others replied that 100% use computers. Most departments were
not satisfied with the funding available for IT. Results also show that the
larger the department the less money there is for faculty computing. The number
of staff available for support varies; some departments have several, some
none. Merrill said that out of 1200 faculty members, 564 were included in the
survey even though only 21 departments responded.
Jack said that UC Santa Cruz looked at what could be improved in the current
budget situation and have started to manage IT differently Ð everyone gets the
same level of service unless they want to pay more. Merrill said he will
continue to gather responses, and report again at a later date. COMP members
thanked him for his work. He said a summary report will be made available.
Data Stewardship Council draft policy on Data Integration
Ken asked for comments on the letter written by Dean Leonard to COMP about the
DSC draft policy. Marti Hearst said that people in a staff meeting in her
department (IMS)expressed alarm at the restrictions on
data transmission. Merrill commented that there needed to be a clear statement
about the kind of data being restricted. There was too little time for a group
discussion of this matter.
The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
The next meeting will be held on Monday, September 13, 2004 from 3:30 Ð 5:30
p.m. in room 3401 Dwinelle Hall.
Recorder: mailto:spress@berkeley.edu