Minutes - November 10, 2000
1:30-3 pm - I.G. Greer Room 224
I. Welcome and announcements
The meeting was called to order and the membership greeted by Jeff Williams at 1:39 PM. Members absent were Jeff Craven, Beth Davison, Patrick Echerd, Al Harris, and Dick Riedl. Tom Leonard attended for Teresa Canton and Ray Pittman attended for Clayton Cooke. Steve Breiner, Tom Culver, Mick Kreszock, Erin Simmons, and Gary Yorkdale were present as visitors.
II. Review of Minutes - October 20, 2000
Minutes of the October 20 meeting were approved by the membership without discussion or change.
III. Update on Web Forum
Lynne Lysiak reported on the preliminary meeting of the Web Forum group on October 30 and mentioned that attendance had been less than stellar. She stated that a listserv had been established for that group to assure more timely and convenient communications among the participants. The major result of the meeting was something of a consensus that the web presence of Appalachian State University needs to display a more consistent “look and feel,” mainly at and above the departmental level. In supporting the consensus, University Assistant Webmaster Erin Simmons suggested that the responsibilities for building and maintaining the variety of Appalachian’s web sites should be better defined and that the locus of authority for the multitude sites should be more clearly identified, organizationally and on the sites themselves. Lysiak reported that Tamara Swedberg (HRS) would be attempting to identify and contact as many department-level webmasters as possible to build support for a more coordinated and consistent Appalachian web presence. She further stated that, at this point, activities of the Web Forum were primarily in “information gathering mode” and that activities would increase once a base of accurate information had been established.
IV. Discussion of Assets Management Software
Doug May (Academic Computing Services) reported to the group about ACS’ evaluation of asset management and tracking software to significantly improve the information we can collect about the hardware and software being used on Appalachian-owned computers. The software, which would be provided at no charge to the university by the State of NC Information Technology division, can be highly customized to collect only information needed for specific tasks and to protect the legitimate privacy concerns of users. May suggested that prior to any proposed roll-out, it would be imperative to fully inform and educate users about every detail of the proposed project, that only with complete openness and disclosure would such an undertaking be acceptable to users. May described the reasons for needing this collectible information related to software licensing, hardware needs, and funding issues.
The data collected by this system would be available through a web-hosted site and would be accessible to the university IT division. Limited information about numbers of machines and software licenses would be available to the state IT division to facilitate volume licensing and purchasing initiatives.
Williams asked if there might be a “big brother” fear on the parts of users, to which May replied that the key would be to fully inform users about the goals and methods proposed and to gain their “buy-in” before attempting any roll out. Bill Ward (Academic Affairs) suggested that it would be prudent to invite the university attorney to come to ITAC to discuss the legal implications and/or requirements such information gathering would entail.
Subsequent discussion evolved into a consensus that the information needs that would be addressed by such an effort justified a pilot project to examine the software, its capabilities, and the issues that might arise from its use. Members suggested that during such a pilot, the information only should be kept locally until we had a chance to fully assess and identify the information collected.
V. Update on Student Lab Printing
May updated ITAC on the Pharos (printing management) system, which is in production in several areas around campus. He reported that an updated version has been received and would soon be running in ACS-operated student labs in ACS, the COB, Belk Library, and the Student Union. Once any difficulties with these areas are ironed out, ACS will work on increasing the scope of offerings available via the system. Value-added, extra-cost services like color-laser printing, large-format printing, and others will eventually be accessible through Pharos’ payment capabilities and the existing media card system. Once the new software and its capabilities have been tested, other campus divisions will be invited to implement the system to aid them in management of their printing needs.
Mick Kreszock (Instructional Technology Center) mentioned that his group has noted that a foreseeable printing “bottleneck” with Pharos never materialized, and, in fact, waiting lines for printouts seem to have been reduced.
VI. Discussion of network directions (NCREN, backbone segmentation, wireless, etc.)
Tom Culver (Network Support Services) reported on NSS’ plans to restructure the entire Appalachian State University network. Such a restructuring would be based on a geographic division of the campus into proximal areas, along with a changed system for allocating IP numbers (Internet Protocol addresses). When asked why this was necessary, Culver replied that Appalachian is running out of available IP numbers because with the departmentally allocated system we currently use, we are unable to recover and reallocate unused addresses or to assure that machine movement is appropriately accounted for. Additionally, at present, incorporating a new machine (IP node) on the net requires a significant effort that need not be expended with the proposed, automated system of address allocation. With the proposed implementation of a periodic, required re-registration of machines on the network, we can also address some concerns noted by the NC State Information Technology auditors. Lysiak asked about the implementation timeline for the proposal, and Culver responded that deployment was projected for fall semester 2001.
Culver later reported on a number of pilot projects involving wireless technologies in ITS, the COB, and Belk Library. Such systems, as reliability and speed rapidly improves, can be set up for roughly $1000 per access point (for around 25 machines) with about $300 per machine for a mobile transceiver. He also mentioned that the prices are following the falling trend as capabilities increase and suggested that these technologies might be appropriate alternatives to traditional wired networks, particularly where mobility is necessary and/or where hard-wiring would be expensive.
Culver updated ITAC on the December 4 conversion of authentication for Appalachian’s modem-based PPP access from a flat-file database model to the standard Appstate username/password model. The conversion resulted in only minimal difficulty for a few users.
He then briefed the group on the NCREN (NC Research and Education Network) proposal that will soon go to the state legislature for consideration. Increases in the network’s capabilities and a single statewide network are parts of the proposal that are supported by some high level IT oversight committees. Culver mentioned that when RESNET added 1000 student to the campus network, campus traffic essentially doubled, likely due to Napster or Napster-like file exchange software and streaming media. Kreszock mentioned that network upgrades from DS3 to OC3 “pipes” could eventually triple Appalachian’s network access charges at the MCNC gateway. Williams added that such cost increases might lead to a per-use model for apportioning costs for services. Kreszock mentioned that methods for more accurately apportioning costs were under development. Ward wondered whether the metering of network use might be so precise as to allow examination at the individual port level, to which Culver responded negatively. Kreszock stated that metering at the “subnet-level” was, at present, the most precise possible.
In a related note Williams asked David Sampson (Student Development) whether the original RESNET committee were still active and whether they would look into the experiences and efforts of other institutions to manage RESNET-generated network traffic. Kreszock noted that NC State has been virtually unable to control Napster use on its campus.
VII. Other Business
Steven Breiner (Instructional Computing Services) reported briefly on this year’s upcoming faculty laptop grant and workshop project. He referred the members to the ICS web site (http://www.ics.appstate.edu) to find more information. Kreszock suggested that a replacement program would affect (we hope?) the prevalent “trickle down” model so commonly used.
Williams reported that ITS will be undertaking a major update to its Technology Plan, and that ITAC would be asked to review and comment on the plan. He mentioned that two issues likely to hold major import would be those of (a) regular workstation replacement cycles and (b) some degree of standardization of machine types and capabilities to minimize inefficiency in supporting the current hodgepodge of machine brands, types and capacities. He reported also that, based on information he has acquired by virtue of his participation in GA initiative, the state legislature may take up the issue of consolidating purchases for hardware and that Appalachian should address these issues with a view toward avoiding problems that might otherwise result.
VIII. Adjournment
With no other business noted, the meeting adjourned at 3:10 PM.
Permalink Comments off
