Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC)

1:30-3:00 pm - I.G. Greer Room 224

Persons Present:

Ex officio members: Jeff Williams (ITS, Chair), Doug May (ACS), Margaret Yaukey (Faculty Senate)

Voting members: Brian Brown (Student Services), Clayton Cooke (Systems & Special Projects), Beth Davison (Arts & Sciences), Al Harris (College of Business), Sandy Jones (for Len Johnson, Chancellor’s Office &  HRS), Greg Lovins (Business Affairs), Lynne Lysiak (Belk Library), Karl Hermann (SGA Student Representative), Ed Pekarek (Arts & Sciences), Richard Riedl (Reich College of Education), Peter Wachs (Student Development).

Guests Attending: Steve Breiner (Instructional Computing, ITS, recorder), Tom Culver (Network Support Services, ITS), David Hayler (Network Support Services, ITS), Terry Combs (Systems and Management, ITS), Steve Hopper (Applications Group, ITS), Pamela Graham (Arts & Sciences), Charles M. Kreszock (Instructional Technology Center), Gail Hearn (Chancellor’s Office), Mary Beth McKee (Instructional Computing, ITS), Steve Levin (Electronic Student Services), Adam Morton (Electronic Student Services), Douglas Brantz (Fine and Applied Arts)

I. Welcome and announcements

Jeff Williams called the meeting to order at 1:30 PM and greeted those attending. Williams asked for a change of order in the original agenda to accommodate the schedule of presenting members who had pressing commitments, to which the membership readily agreed. In deference to the relatively sparse attendance at this post-semester meeting, Williams suggested, and the membership agreed, that ITAC should postpone consideration of the previous meeting’s minutes until the next meeting.

II. Status of Banner Human Resources

Clayton Cooke reported that the previous target for Banner HRS software deployment would be delayed until the university can be assured of the integrity of the system and the data it produces. He anticipated that such assurance might be achieved by July 1, 2003, but cautioned that it might not occur until the following January. Dick Riedl asked why departments were now required to complete both old and new time records in parallel. Cooke replied that (a) the duplication was requested in an effort to validate the preformance and accuracy of the Banner system before relying on it for production processing, and (b) that the opportunity was being taken in order to fine-tune and maximize the ease and efficiency with which the newer system can be placed into production. He stated further that it was hoped that the old style time records could be retired after the February reporting period.

III. Network security implementation plans

Tom Culver recapped the overview, given at the previous ITAC meeting, of the new Trusted/Untrusted network model to be deployed at the first of the year. David Hayler addressed some concerns previously voiced by some administrative users about the possibility of terminal sessions be inconveniently dropped in the new network rubric; he stated that stable connections can be maintained through the use of so-called “keepalive” timers that periodically “wake up” the network communications. He further mentioned that there might, indeed, be some problems with secure documents printing on insecure printing, but that an ongoing process by NSS and others to identify those print servers and their potential problems would likely prevent most of them from becoming issues. On questioning about whether users would be able to access secure servers from the commodity Internet, Hayler discussed the implementation of and software availability for a sercure VPN (Virtual Private Networking) mechanism for allowing just such access; he cautioned that there was currently not a version of the software for Macintosh, but that several possible VPN clients for the Mac were being investigated. Brian Brown asked whether machines currently on the “trusted” VLAN can be made accessible to the Internet; Hayler replied that NSS can and will move those servers needing exposure into the “untrusted” VLAN to allow access from outsied the trusted side.

IV. Email

Terry Combs reported that he had assembled some statistical information about Appalachian’s incoming e-mail traffice and had sent that information to various IT consultants and to the ITAC membership. He addressed the implications of that information in three related areas:

Current SPAM process

Combs reported that obvious, identifiable (by automated SPAM filters ) spam comprised some 43% of the incoming email over the last week and was automatically deleted by the SPAM removal software. Currently the software’s “Spam Level”, a metric identifying what mail is deleted, is conservatively set for 15 in order to automatically delete unsolicited e-mail, and that with improvements in the technology, he hoped to reduce the level gradually over time to filter out even more than we currently are able to do.

Current virus protection process

He reported that the Sophos E-mail Virus-scanning software was highly successful in eliminating most e-mailed viruses and “trojan horses.” He stated that at this point, the most commonly filtered problem was the Klez virus.

AppalNET and iPlanet issues/migration

Combs reported that the ongoing problem with over-quota mailboxes was currently under scrutiny, with a proposal that users’ DELETED folders would begin being purged after a grace notification to users. The problem with these folders is that many users do not know that a user’s e-mail is retained in the DELETED folder until the user purges his or her folder. This results in large amounts of occupied storage and in users being perpetually over-quota. The proposed mechanism would be to notify users that they would have 7 days in which to purge their accounts of unneeded messages, after which the users account would reject further incoming email until the user’s account fell under its allowable quota.

Combs again mentioned our proposed move toward a single, universal e-mail system and noted that current default user quotas were set at 14 megabytes (MB). Currently, more than 80% of Appalachian’s email users fall within a range of 1-50 MB of e-mail and that some 110 users maintained e-mail storage over 150 MB. He discussed the inability of both the AppalNET and iPlanet Messenger clients to use local (on a user’s hard disk) folders for archiving, but noted that many faculty and staff use either Outlook/OL Express or Netscape Messenger, both of which can use local folders for archiving.

Mick Kreszock asked what was included in determining a user’s usage for comparisons with quotas. Combs replied that all files, programs, and e-mails in the user’s directory tree was included in the quota determination.  Dick Riedl asked whether there had been a timetable established for implementation of the new quota mechanism; Combs suggested that we were aiming for mid-semester (Spring 2003) or later. Combs asked the membership to provide opinions or suggestions on what would be appropriate faculty and staff quotas, numbers needed in order to forecast our future storage needs.

Doug Brantz asked whether there was a way to allow mail, composed while a user was connected to a non-Appalachian ISP, to send e-mail via the Appalachian SMTP server. Combs replied that a mechanism was being tested for allowing an authenticated user to do so, and that it would be enabled in the near future.

V. Other business

Williams reported to the group that the state IT auditors would likely visit Appalchian in January. He reported that  auditors’ concerns revealed in previous visits had, for the most part, been addressed, particularly those more serious concerns related to disaster recover and business continuity. He further reported that we had made significant advances in network security and account management, and our earlier comissioning of an independent network assessment should put us in very good shape in that regard.

Our current focus, remarked Williams, is on the development of an IT Management Flexibility Plan for submission to the UNC Board of Governors — a document that requests that we be allowed to continue making IT decisions locally with more flexibility  to meet our specific needs than what we would have, otherwise, under the restrictions of the State of North Carolina IT Division.

Brian Brown announced that Appalachian would be holding a presentation and workshop on the development of Open Source Software and Collaborations tools in the context of Learning Communities at Appalachian. He provided a handout with location and time information and invited participation the ITAC membership.

VI. Adjournment

Williams bid the membership farewell and adjourned the meeting at 3:05 PM.

1:30 - 3:00 pm - I.G. Greer 224

1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Status of Banner Human Resources
3. Network security implementation plans
4. Discussion of Email
5. Other business items

1:30- 3:00 pm - I.G. Greer Room 224

Persons Present:

Ex officio members: Jeff Williams (Chair), Doug May (ACS)

Voting members: Brian Brown (Student Services), Teresa Canton (University Advancement),  Beth Davison (Arts & Sciences), Bill Griffin (Arts & Sciences), Al Harris (College of Business), Kevin Howell (Fine & Applied Arts), Gail Hearn (for Len Johnson, Chancellor’s Office), Greg Lovins (Business Affairs), Lynne Lysiak (Belk Library), Ed Pekarek (Arts & Sciences), Richard Riedl (Reich College of Education), Peter Wachs (Student Development), Wilber Ward (Academic Affairs).

Guests Attending: Steve Levin (Electronic Student Services), Tom Leonard (University Advancement), Greg Simmons (Instructional Computing, ITS), Terry Combs (Systems and Management, ITS), Tom Van Gilder (Arts & Sciences), Erin Kirby (Univ. Webmaster, ITS), Steve Hopper (Applications Group, ITS), David Hayler (Network Support Services, ITS), Tom Culver (Network Support Services, ITS), John Spagnolo (Reich College of Education), Adam Morton (Electronic Student Services), Steve Breiner (Instructional Computing, ITS, recorder)

1) Welcome and Introductions

Jeff Williams greeted the membership and requested a round of introductions to introduce new and old members to the group.

2) Appalachian’s Baseline Network Security Plan

Tom Culver reported that the results of a network security assessment, earlier commissioned by ITS, revealed a number security “holes” in Appalachian’s network structure. In order to close the identified vulnerabilities, to minimize the security risks to our network, and to address anticipated mandates from the UNC General Administration, Culver described and provided handouts picturing a network structure proposed for implementation over the next few months. The plan he described would also minimize the possibility that machines on Appalachian’s network might be used to conduct attacks on machines laying outside of Appalachian’s purview.  Culver asked  interested members of the committee to provide comments or concerns about the proposed structure by October 25th. Culver then turned the floor over to his colleague, David Hayler

Hayler reported that the university’s Internet link to NCREN had been upgraded to a theoretical bandwidth 500% higher that was previously available, but that with our current equipment we probably realized bandwidth only 250% of the previous value. He added that, when installed, equipment on order should allow for capacity more in line with theoretical values. Hayler then elaborated on the network structural model introduced by Culver, stating that there would be two major security zones in the new structure– an “Untrusted” set of subnets for servers and other machines needing direct exposure to external Internet traffic and a “Trusted” set of subnets for “core servers” which  would be directly accessible only from within the trusted subnet(s) or via a secure VPN (Virtual Private Network) tunnel from the external Internet. Hayler and Culver then fielded a number of questions dealing with particular situations, with the major thrust being that the proposed structure was designed with the ability to adapt to special situations on an as needed basis. Culver announced that a more technical presentation and Q&A session about the proposed structure would be held in the ITOM conference room at 3:00 PM for those who had need of more specific or technical information about the proposal.

3) Report on Status of Appalachian’s Updated Web Presence

Williams reported that an updated Web Identity (look, feel, and structure) had resulted from the series the web fora and focus groups conducted throughout the university in late 2001. The “new look” had been presented to and had been approved by the University Administrative Cabinet within the last week. Erin Kirby noted that the new site would likely be opened either over Fall Break or near Homecoming Week, with the latter currently favored by her office.

4) Request for Input on Firm Policies Regarding University E-mail

Williams informed the group that there were two critical current issues involving e-mail access via university servers. The first noted the confusion that has occurred when faculty did not realize that they were each owners of two distinct university-related e-mail accounts, one on the traditional VMS systems and one in the iPlanet system that is parts of AppalNET. A discussion, initiated by Beth Davison and supported by Adam Morton, ensued as to whether it might be appropriate to set automatic mail forwarding from faculty AppalNET accounts to the other system. Terry Combs (Systems & Management) replied that such a change at this point would create numerous problems, as would any wholesale change to the system at this point, garnering essentially an agreeable consensus with his argument, with a decision to distribute a note to affected faculty about how to manage their e-mail with the current setup. A number of the ITAC membership noted that there had been no general notification to users that the e-mail situation existed, and that better information dissemination might prevent such confusion in the future. Doug May agreed to develop a mechanism for notifying users of the e-mail issue and how it might be resolved. Williams then reminded the committee (reference numerous earlier announcements) that our intent was eventually migrate all e-mail to a single enterprise-level service and that such a migration would render this type of problem moot.

Combs then reported that current statistics show that roughly a thousand student users route their Appalachian e-mail to external e-mail accounts, noting that things like quota problems and lost service are fairly common events with that group. He noted that Appalachian is now using intelligent filtering to tag unsolicited commercial e-mail (AKA, spam) with a tag of {SPAM?}and that all incoming mail can be scanned for viruses, but that those services are essentially circumvented when users use external services for e-mail management. A number of members stated that they had seen the {SPAM?}tag on certain e-mail but that they were puzzled as what it meant or that it have come from our e-mail scanning engine. Al Harris noted, with agreement from Steve Breiner, that this was another example for which advanced notification to users might have prevented significant confusion.

Combs then mentioned that of today’s (10/11/2002) e-mail inflow, roughly 50% had been SPAM, and Williams asked that ITAC provide guidance on a policy for dealing with and/or filtering levels for this sort of e-mail. Harris mentioned, and Dick Riedl concurred, that there needs to be at least a month’s prior notification before implementing such a policy. Williams then stated that ITS would provide more detailed information to ITAC and ask for a decision regarding policies for dealing with the issue at the next ITAC meeting. Bill Griffin wondered whether and how ITS would make announcements about any endorsed policy, to which Combs replied that an Announcement in AppalNET would likely be the mechanism for notification.

Williams then asked for advice on disk space quotas after explaining that, currently, many users’ unread e-mail floods their quotas, but that, to date, we have allowed e-mail to continue being received by the users’ accounts. Combs emphasized the importance of the issue by explaining that the e-mail system being positioned to handle all campus e-mail would impose “hard” quotas that would cut off any delivery of e-mail once it was full. Williams noted that the current typical user quota of 15 megabytes (MB) would not be sufficient for faculty and staff, suggesting something in the range of 100 MB would be more appropriate, and that a quota of 50 MB would more than meet the requirements of roughly 80% of all nonstudent users. Breiner suggested that long before any strict enforcement of quotas, a clear and informative message to users about the policy and how to deal with it was critical to the success of such a policy. Griffin mentioned anecdotal reports by users that they had been told that they must “hold on to” e-mail for at least 5 years. Williams replied that ITS would come up with advice to users on how to manage documents that must be kept and the it would be appropriate to confer with the new university archivist to develop reasonable and practical procedures. Lynn Lysiak asked if there was a projected time frame for migration onto the new e-mail system. Combs replied that he hoped to have things in place before the end of Spring semester, 2003.

5) UNC Migration to SCT Banner

Williams reported that representatives of the UNC system institutions had agreed to move forward with full implementation of the SCT Banner Suite of Student Information, HR, Alumni, and Financial management tools. He noted that Appalachian was ahead of the game, proposing to “turn on” Banner HRS in January 2003. Overall, the migration from existing systems is set to occur over a 5-year interval, beginning with the Financial package, followed by Student Information Systems and HRS, with Banner Alumni Package “floating”. Appalachian personnel are currently involved in an intensive effort to learn the new systems.

6) Technology Training for “At Risk” Students

Breiner reported that he had met with Wes Waugh (Director of Tutoring Services) of the Learning Assistance Program and that Waugh had reported that Appalachian had a number of students who had little or nothing in the way of computer skills, and that many of these students had encountered significant obstacles in their educations, based on those deficiencies in preparation. He wondered if ITAC might be willing to make recommendations regarding how to deal with the problem.

Peter Wachs wondered whether an assessment along the lines of those used for assessing mathematical and reading skills might be appropriate. Bill Ward noted that there were already academic areas (Freshman Seminar, Computer Science, and Computer and Information Systems) charged with responsibilities to teach basic computer skills. Breiner suggested that perhaps these students were so unfamiliar with computing as to be unable to benefit from the courses in those areas. Ward questioned whether there was any “hard” documentation of the kinds of deficiencies involved and the numbers of students involved. Breiner referred to his conversation with Waugh, who had, Breiner thought, surveyed many of these students and who would be able to provide more information and specifics. Breiner promised to contact Waugh and ask for more and more specific information to bring back for consideration at a later time.

7) New Review Service for Online Materials from Textbook Publishers

Breiner announced, mainly for the academic ITAC representatives, that Instructional Computing Services (ICS) now offered to review WebCT or other locally hosted, online materials provided by textbook publishers. He related that there had been a number of departments that had selected particular texts based on claims that the publisher provided (some complimentary, some for a fee) WebCT courses associated with the textbook. Only after receiving such materials did departments become aware that some such materials were low quality, poorly implemented, or essential empty shells, of little or no benefit to students or faculty in the departments. Breiner suggested that ICS’ experience with such materials could materially enhance departments’ abilities to make informed and valid decisions involving such products. He distributed a handout describing the service and referred interested faculty to the information therein.

Adjournment

The time for the meeting having expired, the membership adjourned at slightly after 3:00 PM