Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC)

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

Persons Present:

Ex Officio members: Doug May (Acad. Computing Serv.), Michael Moore ( Faculty Senate)

Voting Members: Joseph Cazier (for Donald Amoroso, WCOB), Brian Brown (Student Services), Kevin Howell (F & A A), Emory Maiden (A & S), Tom McDonnell (Music), Ed Pekarek (A & S), and Bill Ward (Academic Affairs).

Visitors: Steve Breiner (Instructional Comp. Serv., ITAC Recorder), Tony Grant (F & A A), Mick Kreszock (Instructional Tech. Ctr.), Elaine Gray (Instructional Tech. Ctr.), Greg Simmons (Instr. Comp. Serv.), Jeff Church (Instr. Comp. Serv.), Tom Van Gilder (Arts & Sciences), and Pamela Graham (Arts & Sciences).

1) Welcome, Opening Comments

Doug May greeted the group, noting that this was the charter gathering of the Academic ITAC Subcommittee, as suggested in by Jeff Williams at the September 9 ITAC meeting and called the meeting to order at 1:35.

2) Election of Academic Subcommittee Chair

Due to a need on the parts of some members to attend other engagements, May suggested revising the original agenda to address the issues related to the future of course management systems (CMS) at Appalachian before addressing the issue of a Subcommittee Chair. The membership showed no objection, so election of the chair was postponed.

3) Future Directions re: Course/Learning Management Systems

Steve Breiner (Instructional Computing) provided comments about the proposed merger of the WebCT and Blackboard companies. He suggested that WebCT was rather strongly pressuring its customers to move to WebCT Vista, the purported “enterprise” level successor to the WebCT Campus Edition currently used by Appalachian, and that a move by Appalachian in that direction would be an expensive and labor-intensive pursuit. He stated that the experience he and his team have had with the product (Vista) had not been particularly encouraging, noting that he and Greg Simmons (an ICS consultant) attended 13 person-days of WebCT training on Vista and its administration. In addition to his perception that the product is extremely expensive (the up-front cost figures provided by WebCT indicated a one time payment of 850% of our current annual license cost, with additional annual maintenance fees amounting to 170% of our current annual license costs), the product seemed too buggy and complex (especially the user interface) and would not provide a usable migration mechanism for moving existing Campus Edition sites into the new product. His major concern was that administration and support of the product, and noted that the campuses which have already purchased the Vista product had greatly larger personnel pools that would Appalachian for addressing their migration to and support of the newer product.

Jeff Church (Instructional Computing) distributed a handout and presented an overview of WebCT usage at Appalachian, based on extensive statistics compiled from usage logs collected since fall semester, 2004. He identified the functionalities within WebCT that received significant usage at Appalachian and noted the usage of WebCT had increased from spring 2004 to spring 2005 about 37% and that he anticipated a larger growth rate when the current fall semester is compared to that of 2004. He showed that the number of credit hours for classes using WebCT had (without considering Applied Music courses) increased from 15½% to over 21% of the semester credit hours offered during those respective terms and that the number of faculty using WebCT (i.e., with one or more active WebCT classes) had increased from 151 to 220 for the corresponding terms. Church remarked that similar analyses would be conducted at the end of the current semester and that those results would be made available soon thereafter.

Greg Simmons (Instructional Computing) then addressed the membership to ask that ITAC propose mechanisms to insure that any strategic decisions being made as regards Appalachian’s CMS reasonably address the pedagogical and technological needs of the community. He noted that that CMS usage had become truly mission-critical and that the impending decisions were too important for ICS (Instructional Computing Services) to try to make on its own. He then asked for guidance from ITAC on what course ICS should take—how we should evaluate CMS systems, whom should be asked to participate in the discussions, whether we should investigate open source (OS) offerings as possible solutions.

Breiner proposed that, since we Appalachian will likely need to move to a different CMS solution than the current one, it would be prudent to explore open-source options that might be made to provide accessible and functional equivalents to our current usage of WebCT— and that such a system might be made to allow us to migrate existing course content without the difficulties he had seen with the WebCT Vista product. He emphasized that any possible open-source CMS solution would not be cost free, or even inexpensive. Adapting any of the currently available OS systems to Appalachian’s needs would involved significant up-front costs, including programming, management, and support resources, as well as the need to support the existing CMS during any migration. He suggested that diverting the would-be cost increases for the WebCT Vista product toward internal and collaborative development of an OS solution would likely more than repay those up-front costs and, over time, would leave Appalachian with the ability to continue to use the resulting product without the historically exponential cost increases of the commercial products, seemingly driven by market pressures rather than by educational necessity.

Breiner further mentioned that, whatever direction Appalachian takes with respect to a new CMS, there would be a need to enhance or create the support structure that would be necessary to move to the new solution.

Discussion of the CMS issue then ensued. Mick Kreszock (Instructional Technology Center) suggested deploying a survey of faculty and students through AppalNET to identify what students and faculty need from a CMS, what they like and dislike about our current CMS, and what they would like to see in a future CMS. Ed Pekarek (Arts & Sciences) mentioned the importance of having representation from diverse groups and abilities on any advisory group that we create to deal with this issue and that it would be important to include even those who have shied away from CMS usage in the past.

Bill Ward (Academic Affairs) suggested that ICS be the focal point for the upcoming discussion. Breiner tentatively agreed but cautioned that it must not be ICS alone that makes the decision.

Breiner closed by stating that ICS would begin assembling groups of discussants to address the CMS issue and would keep ITAC abreast of developments. By consensus, the group agreed to participate in a poll asking the the college consultants to identify one “power user,” one “intermediate user,” and a student representative from their respective areas to participate in some opening forays to begin the discussions.

4) Other business

As the meeting time drew close to 3:00, no further business was discussed and the issue of electing a subcommittee chair was deferred until later.

5) Adjournment

The meeting adjourned slightly before 3:00 PM.

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

Ex Officio members: Doug May (Acad. Computing Serv.), Jeff Williams (Chair, Info. Tech. Serv.), Michael Moore (for Tim Huelsman, Faculty Senate)

Voting Members: Joseph Cazier (for Donald Amoroso, WCOB), Brian Brown (Student Services), Tony Grant (for Kevin Howell, F & A A), Greg Lovins (Business Affairs), Lynne Lysiak (Belk Library), Emory Maiden (A & S), Tom McDonnell (Music), Ed Pekarek (A & S), Dick Riedl (RCOE), Bill Ward (Academic Affairs), and John Wiggins (SGA Representative)

Visitors: Steve Breiner (Instructional Comp. Serv., ITAC Recorder), Tom Leonard (Univ. Advancement), Ryan Morton (Instructional Tech. Ctr.), Tom Van Gilder (Arts & Sciences), Tom Culver (ITS - Network Support Serv.), Greg Simmons (Instr. Comp. Serv.), Jeff Church (Instr. Comp. Serv.), Michael Bennett (RCOE), Oscar Knight (ITS).

1) Welcome, Opening Comments

Jeff Williams (ITS) called the meeting to order at 1:32 and greeted those attending. He asked for a round of introductions, noting that there were a few new members on the committee.

2) Update on network refresh

Tom Culver (Network Services) reported that the equipment changeover discussed in previous meetings had been nearly completed over the last 12 months. Replacement of the campus network core hardware and switches was between 90% and 95% complete. He noted that there had been a small number of issues that were addressed as they surfaced and predicted that virtually all of those kinds of things should be resolved within the next month or two. The new equipment should greatly enhanced Appalachian’s ability to manage its networks. Culver then noted that proposed replacements of the RESNET (Student Residential Network) had received firmware upgrades in lieu of full replacements, due to funding constraints within Student Development that prevented full equipment replacements.

(Editors note: The following parts of this discussion topic were interspersed with later topics, but are included here to better represent the thread of the discussion.)

Ed Pekarek (Computer Science) mentioned that there had been a number of problems with network-mediated license management during the network refresh operations. He suggested that such problems were exacerbated because they had occurred near the start of the semester. He implored that future operations having the potential to affect connectivity (particularly as regards academic operations) be timed better, so as not to coincide with the those times where reliable operation is most important. Doug May (Academic Computing) replied that ITS always tries to plan in a way that minimizes adverse effects on uses, but that despite best efforts, some effects or implications are occasionally missed.

3) Update on residence hall network issues

Brian Brown (Electronic Student Services) mentioned that the equipment changeovers and upgrades had caused some issues with connectivity, especially in the residence halls, and suggested that similar difficulties in the future will only be avoided if the university develops and implements a comprehensive formal plan for ongoing maintenance and replacement of network equipment.

Oscar Knight (Computer Security Specialist) noted that the firmware upgrades to RESNET, while not as desirable as full equipment replacements, had greatly reduced malicious activity on our network. The recent AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) virus, which has detrimentally affected numerous networks elsewhere, was greatly mitigated by the new firmware and, though being the worst threat so far this semester, had had relatively little impact on campus. He noted, however, that there were currently some 240 users still under computer quarantine and that their affected machines would have to be disinfected before allowing them back on the net.

Bill Ward (Academic Affairs) asked what symptoms were associated with the AIM virus, to which Knight replied that infected machines spewed out numerous, infected AIM programs to other machines, thereby spreading itself to other computers. Knight further reported that our intrusion detection systems had detected the infection early and helped prevent its spreading.

May reported that the Telephone Support Center had seen a dramatic drop-off in connectivity problems since the start of the semester, and that some early occurrence of RESNET switches spontaneously disconnecting had been greatly reduced through Network Services efforts. Brown concurred that things had greatly improved since semester’s start and expressed hope that the trend would continue.

Culver noted that two years ago, similar types of malicious activity on RESNET had required complete disconnection to those VLANs from the core network — despite some similarity in the action of the current malware (malicious computer software), our current networks has retained essential full functionality.

Greg Simmons (Instructional Computing) asked how many students had been affected by the earlier switch disconnections. Brown replied that five specific switches had caused most of the problems, mainly because they needed to be manually reset each disconnection during a hands-on visit. He observed that the replacement of those switches would prevent the problem in the future, once accomplished.

4) Update on AppLEAP

Greg Lovins (Business Affairs - Administration) provided an update on the progress with the AppLeap Banner implementation, referring to the release schedule posted on the AppLeap we site (http://appleap.appstate.edu). The AppLeap web site is part of an attempt on the part of the Banner implementation group to communicate better with the university community and contains FAQs (frequently asked questions), system information, rationale for the project, and other related information. He reported that the old Banner training space in Broome-Kirk had been retired in favor of a modern, well equipped space in 2014 Raley Hall and that related for reporting and scheduling had been purchased to support the effort. He further mentioned that the AppLeap team was currently looking at space management software and would soon be conducting awareness sessions with staff, deans, and faculty.

5) Update on Infrastructure

Williams reported to the group that the long-obsolete modem pool would be retired on January 1, 2006 or upon its failure, whichever comes first. He remarked that the decision not to continue to maintain the modem pool had been made long ago.

The university’s IT-related disaster recovery plan was undergoing an update to reflect the current status of central IT. He suggested that non-ITS departments that maintain or run peripheral servers and system should contact him to begin discussions on including those services deemed important in the central planning for our disaster recovery plan. He indicate that with the numbers of peripheral (as opposed to central) services we currently have, there need to be some discussions of how those services would be handled in the event of a disaster.

As part of its efforts to maintain data integrity, ITS has purchased an aging digital tape backup unit with a more capable, more powerful system, and will soon be licensing software to increase the speed and reliability of backups.

With the move of the Instructional Computing group the new Library and Information Commons (LIC), ITS has replaced the aging training lab with new mobile machines, with most training moved into room 327 of the LIC.

Upcoming developments in ITS include a dramatic increase in the space available for email storage and will, possibly, occur in conjunction with increased storage space available to faculty and staff via Novell.

6) Update on TLT (Teaching and Learning with Technology)

Steve Breiner (Instructional Computing) briefed the group on some looming issues with regard to TLT. He reiterated (from an earlier meeting) that Appalachian’s current Learning Management System (LMS) vendor, WebCT, had released WebCT Vista, the “enterprise-level” successor to the WebCT Campus Edition we currently use. After members of ICS’ team had attended user training, support training, and administrative training for the product, they have concluded that the software was surpassingly complex, rife with software bugs and dysfunctional, and too exorbitantly expensive to remain a viable option for Appalachian. Breiner suggested that ITAC take the lead in establishing a group to formally evaluate the various LMS alternatives available to Appalachian, including the open-source systems (Sakai and Moodle), in an effort to prepare for an eventual migration from the current product. He noted that an open-source system would not at all imply a cost-free alternative, instead suggesting that the resources we would otherwise spend on a commercial LMS (WebCT Vista would carry a price in the hundreds of thousands of dollars) could be used for development that would yield a fully functional LMS option, without the spiraling cost increases, sequestration of information, and withholding of useful tools typically encountered with the commercial vendors. In addition, he opined that being essentially independent of the commercial pricing structures and release schedules; Appalachian could more directly manage the LMS to meet its own needs.

He reported that WebCT usage had increased dramatically (in the neighborhood of 40% per year) over the last three semesters and that ICS would be sending per-click statistics to instructors who had used the system for classes. He further noted that the staff charged with supporting faculty users of WebCT had essentially reached a point of saturation - as more inexperienced users realize that online services can meet certain of their needs and seek to use those services, the ability to support is increasingly suffering from a lack of time and personnel - ICS has had no personnel growth for over three years. Greg Lovins (Business Affairs), Michael Bennett (RCOE), and Emory Maiden (A&S), all asked about particular usage statistics to which Breiner replied that he would compile and send some summary statistics to the ITAC membership. He also noted that when workloads permit, he would be sending individualized statistics to the instructors who used the LMS.

Breiner also commented on his group’s observations that there were several institutional barriers to progress in eLearning, particularly affecting students who participate in courses at Appalachian as multicampus consortium students. Currently, there are no formal mechanisms to assure that off-campus, online students obtain access to the same resources available to their on-campus peers - each student has to reinvent the process each time the situation occurs. Other issues he mentioned involved ICS’ dilemma in trying to assist technologically inexperienced faculty who demand support for using technology that either they do not understand or that they are unwilling or unable to take the time to learn. He noted that the absence of an apparent institutional commitment to reward faculty who invest in such pursuits, that barrier to progress would likely remain.

Breiner discussed a number of activities sponsored by the University of North Carolina Teaching and Learning with Technology Collaborative (UNC-TLTC). The TLTC recently announced its 2006 conference and the academic members of ITAC were asked to encourage their faculty to participate in what he thought was has been an excellent and value-laden professional development opportunity.

The TLTC is currently sponsoring trials and evaluations of synchronous LMS systems (software that provide real-time and recorded audio and video collaboration and presentation over Internet) — faculty or staff are invited to contact Breiner if they would like to participate in some of those projects. There are also a number of training opportunities sponsored by the TLTC - institutions, departments, or areas can request local training from experts at other campuses, through the UNC-TLT Training Compendium. Breiner referred interested persons to the TLTC’s web site at http://www.unctlt.org and to speak with anyone expressing an interest in any of these opportunities.

7) Update on Tech Support (new phone system, additional resources Walk-in center)

May commented on recent activities related to the Technical Support division of ACS. He noted that there had been numerous user-initiated contacts involving spyware and viruses, with the walk-in support staff sometimes servicing more that 100 computers per day. Some parents have occasionally contacted ACS and expressed displeasure at their children being unable to have problems resolved immediately, but such issues are typically resolved on follow up with the student. Student workers have been handling most of the recent issues rather nicely and May notes that Appalachian, in absorbing the costs of these repairs internally, is virtually unique in the UNC system and perhaps in the nation.

ACS recently installed a new telephone system in order to address need of the unit, particularly the technical support hotline, to improve communications within and without. May stated that ACS always appreciates constructive criticism when issues arise, as inevitably they do when a capable and complex tool is deployed. One major anticipated benefit of the new system is the ability to obtain information from the new system that can help implement more effective resource planning, based on well-collected statistics.

Other business

Bill Ward (Academic Affairs) updated the group on the status of the Chancellor’s wish to create and staff a new position of Vice Chancellor for Information Technology. He reported that the job description for such a position was being written, but that no search committee had yet been seated. A search committee will likely be the next step and will reflect the needs of all appropriate areas of the university, but the process is still at a very early stage and information will be forthcoming as it proceeds.

Williams asked for discussion on an issue about which he had sent an e-mail to the ITAC membership. Therein, he had expressed a concern that academic aspects of IT had received less exposure in ITAC than might be appropriate, and proposed that the group be divided into Academic and Administrative components. The administrative side of computing is now fairly well represented and addressed by the AppLeap Steering Committee (chaired by Greg Lovins) but the academic side is relatively quiet, despite what must be serious concerns and issues. Williams proposed that an academic subgroup might elect its own chair and set its own agenda, thereby assuring agendas that would be apropos of academic concerns.

Pekarek noted that there would be issues, like Banner, that would have undeniable affects on academic areas (especially advising) and wondered is and ITAC split would reduce the flow of needed information. He noted that those types of personnel had not yet been involved in any testing or training on Banner and that the academic ITAC contacts were essentially the only connection with the process. He stated that the numerous academic personnel who would be affected must be more involved, not less, as testing proceeds, and before Banner “goes live.” His concern was that the process, as tenuous as it currently is, might be made worse by segregation of the administrative and academic membership.

Lovins, in reply, stated that one of the most important “learned lessons” for the AppLeap committee during the process, so far, was that it needed to increase its efforts to do outreach with future Banner users.

Williams mentioned that Don Rankins and Toni Becvinovski (Registrar’s Office) will soon be contacting future Banner users, particularly academic ones, to solicit input from them.

Michael Moore (Faculty Senate) asked whether many of the improvements envisioned might be accomplished through more informal means than a committee subdivision. He questioned why a split was needed in the first place.

Williams replied that he had noticed that at different parts of every ITAC meeting, different groups of members seem to “nod off” when the conversation did not directly involve their particular concerns. Ward suggested that, if the agendas of the respective groups were published in advance and if any ITAC members had the option to attend any meeting of either subgroup, the concerns about the absence of information flow would be mitigated.

Williams stated that he would e-mail ITAC with suggested membership lists for the subgroups and would hope to hear comments about any concerns or suggestions.

9) Adjournment

Williams bid the group a good weekend adjourned the meeting at 2:44 PM.

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

Persons Present:

Ex Officio members: Doug May (Acad. Computing Serv.), Jeff Williams (Chair, Info. Tech. Serv.)

Voting Members: Joseph Cazier (proxy for Donald Amoroso, College of Business), Toni Becvinovski (proxy for Don Rankins, Registrar), Lynne Lysiak (Belk Library), Emory Maiden (Coll. of Arts & Sciences), Tom Leonard (proxy for Teresa Canton, Univ. Advancement), Tom McDonnell (Hayes School of Music), Ed Pekarek (Coll. of Arts & Sciences), Dick Riedl (Reich Coll. of Education), Dragan Sefanovic (Coll. of Arts & Sciences), Bill Ward (Academic Affairs)

Visitors: Steve Breiner (Instructional Comp. Serv., ITAC Recorder), Tom Van Gilder (Arts & Sciences), Tung Ong (Electr. Student Serv.), Tony Grant (Dept. of Technology), Wayne Fee (Acad. Comp. Serv.), Jeff Church (Instr. Comp. Serv.), Tom Havelos (Instructional Tech. Ctr.), Steve Hopper (ITS - Applications), Tom Culver (ITS - Network), David Hayler (ITS - Network), David Earp (Acad. Comp. Serv.), Doug Brantz (Fine & Appl. Arts)

1) Welcome, Opening Comments

Jeff Williams (ITS) opened the meeting at 1:32 PM. He greeted the membership and acknowledged a number of new attendees. He then asked attendees, who complied, to introduce themselves and to state from which department or area they had come.

2) Demonstration of iFolder (Storage for Staff/Faculty)

David Earp (ACS) demonstrated Novell’s iFolder remote storage tool to the group. The tool (a local client on one’s machine), currently available to Windows users and available in a beta version to Macintosh users, provides to users the ability to access a remote repository of their files and to synchronize remote and local versions of files on local machines and an iFolder server, as needed. The iFolder server component provides a web interface that gives web-based access to files on the iFolder server from machines virtually anywhere, using a browser-based mechanism for access… changes to files, whether via web or local client, eventually propagate in the background to all of the machines on which the user has enabled the iFolder client. Earp suggested that the iFolder system should address a long-standing desire on the parts of faculty and staff to access to their documents and files from wherever they might need that access, in a reasonably transparent fashion.

Williams asked whether users’ “My Documents” folders were seen to be the appropriate targets for iFolder synchronization and access. Earp replied negatively, because users’ “My Music” and “My Videos” files typically held gigabytes of data that we would not want replicated on servers. He suggested that users should be educated to use the iFolder folders only for data related to their university work, in order to maintain reasonable limits on the amount of user space we would require. Steve Breiner asked whether specific subfolders, like the “My Music” subfolder of users’ “My Documents,” of the designated iFolder target can be “hidden” from the synchronization process in order to allow iFolder to use “My Documents” folders, to minimize the required changes (e.g., learning to save documents to a new default documents folder) to users’ habits… Earp replied that that was not possible with the current version of iFolder, but that might be a feature of future versions of the software. Breiner then asked about the time frame for a full release of the Macintosh version of iFolder. Earp did not have specific dates for that release, but thought it very likely that the general release would occur by the time we were satisfied by testing that we were ready to deploy iFolder for faculty and staff.

Doug May stated that, though initially, only faculty would obtain space for iFolder-based files, he expected to eventually to provide such remote storage capabilities for students as well, with discussions about storage quotas and management to be undertaken by stakeholders before such services were deployed.

Tung Ong asked whether VPN (information about VPNs available here) connections would be required in order to preserve security for users’ file access. Earp replied that the both the iFolder client and web interface were always encrypted between source and destination, so VPN connections would not be necessary for that reason.

3) Discussion of access to remote storage (faculty, staff and students)

Williams reported that, partly in concert with the aforementioned exploration of iFolder, we are currently talking with vendors about purchasing increased storage space for our SAN (Storage Area Network) and for various other purposes, including potential use as general storage for users’ data and documents.

He noted that the volume of data that we maintain will soon exceed the limits of our ability to back it up using our current automated ADIC backup system. He noted that even if we expend the resources to upgrade the system to the latest technology and highest capacity, we will still encounter difficulty with the time physically required for backing up that volume of data.

He mentioned that ITS was currently exploring Hierarchical Storage Management (HSM) as a way to address our increasing need for storage management. He explained that such as system uses high speed (AKA expensive) storage for files that require rapid and frequent access, with lesser used files automatically migrated to slower “archive” storage (first to slower, fully mirrored disk arrays, then later to an automated tape library if no further use occurs within a designated interval) until requested by a user. Upon such a user request for a file previously archived, the files would be retrieved automatically from either the “slow” disk space (in seconds or minutes) or from the tape (minutes or possibly up to hours for long-archived files), depending on the previous use patterns for the specific files. Retrieval of files from either type of archive, online (slow disk) or offline (tape), would be initiated by the user request for the file and would not require any additional action on the part of the user. The HSM system would automatically notify the user once a requested file is available.

Williams reported that the university currently has some 1600 employees designated as “knowledge workers” who, if allocated one gigabyte (a 1,073,741,824-byte unit of storage) each, would occupy a 1.6 Terabytes (a 1,099,511,627,776-byte unit of storage) chunk and that a single gigabyte would likely not be sufficient for many users. Students, too, will require storage, and will likely need an increase over the 20 megabyte quotas they currently receive for e-mail. In the recognition that students’ space needs will certainly increase, likely for both e-main and iFolder storage, Williams asked ITAC to consider what would be an appropriate amount of storage to anticipate on a per-student basis. The time frame for increasing storage capabilities will dovetail with the need to soon replace our e-mail servers (currently 3 years old) with more capable servers, and that it would make a great deal of sense to coordinate the renovation of storage capabilities with the corresponding modernization of our e-mail services.

Tom Van Gilder mentioned that the College of Arts and Sciences had internally settled on a 4 gigabyte per person allocation of server space for its faculty and wondered whether that was something that might be purchased and supported centrally or whether the college would need to fund that level. Williams replied that ITS generally recommended suggested central IT needs to the Office of Academic Affairs and suggested that the discussion of funding should be left to that office.

May also noted that, if Appalachian were to implement an HSM solution for storage management, the issue of faculty server space would become much less an issue, since much faculty storage tends to be archival in nature.But Williams responded that, though simply hanging large disk farms on servers would possibly address larger storage needs, a coordinated approach that addresses backup, hierarchical storage and data integrity would involve more expensive hardware solutions, though the current fiber-channel data backbone should have sufficient data transfer capacity to handle any such solutions we might adopt.

4) Update on network refresh

Tom Culver reported that we were reaching the end of service life (typically 4 to 6 years) for many of our campus network components, including hundreds of switches and thousands of ports. To maintain network integrity and reliability, these devices will all need replacement over the next couple of years, and periodically forever more. The first “edge” switches to be replaced will be those housed in the new Library and Information Commons (the secondary computer center), likely in May, followed by those in Raley Hall. Subsequent replacements will occur as the financial resources become available, probably using a parallel install/replace model where newer devices are placed into operation and tested alongside older ones, and connections being moved en mass after testing has been successfully completed. Culver projected an installation cycle of between three and twelve months on the outside with a three to six month cycle most likely. Culver reiterated that Appalachian needs to understand that the replacement of network equipment cannot be thought of or financed as a if it were a “one-time” expenditure - we have to accept the fact that this is a never-ending, expensive renewal cycle for the foreseeable future.

Culver mentioned that the student residential network (ResNet) would be receiving firmware upgrades to existing equipment rather than full switch replacements, beginning immediately after the end of spring semester. This process will first reclaim the thousands of IP addresses held by ResNet and then will bring residence halls back online, one at a time over the summer and complete before the start of fall semester.

On campus, Network Services will be bringing new wireless zones and capabilities online, using a parallel install/replace model similar to that mentioned for the “edge” switches. The newer equipment will be switch-based, allowing for significantly enhanced management and control of wireless connectivity using “lightweight” access points. “Lightweight” points allow for management from a central server with authentication off of a central authority rather than continuing with “legacy” access points that can be established by anyone with access to an ethernet port without any authorization whatsoever. Williams stated that wireless access in academic areas would be partially funded by E&T (Education and Technology fee) monies, since they will directly support instruction.

Van Gilder asked if Network Support Services (NSS) would be willing to coordinate with the college specialists to insure that network changes and/or installations occur in concert with planned renovations of academic building or residence halls. Culver agreed to do so to the extent that is possible, given the schedule NSS must meet for completion of its project. Hayler stated that NSS would coordinate with the specialists and other stakeholders to minimize the amount of rework that would be required during renovations or installations.

Williams mentioned that these actions and the move toward a managed wireless network was spurred by the clear need for standardization and security in the campus wireless environment.

Breiner noted that he and Culver had spoken about the need to develop an education program for faculty, to inform them about the strengths and limitations of wireless access. Both were concerned that faculty would see wireless access as a full replacement for wired connections and that many might erroneously assume that wireless bandwidth and security are the equals of the wired counterparts. To emphasize the point, Ong noted that when cards with different wireless protocols connect to the same access point, the bandwidths on all such connected devices are downgraded to that of the slowest protocol. Culver suggested that faculty should understand that multiprotocol adapters (rather than simply the cheapest ones) will provide the most reliable and versatile set of connection possibilities.

Tony Grant asked whether wireless devices would have access to the same network subnets as wired devices. Culver answered that wireless networks would not be able to access Appalachians “trusted” networks unless the users installed and configured VPN clients on their machines… with a VPN connections, users would have access to virtually all services. Culver also noted that the newer wireless infrastructure would eventually allow us to deploy 802.1x (information about 802.1x authentication available here) for automated generation and exchange of authentication keys for wireless devices.

Breiner asked whether there was yet an approved VPN client for Macintosh computers. Culver replied that there was not a yet a client for Macintosh that would work with our VPN because Macs use the IPSec protocol (information about IPSec available here) for VPN capabilities, but that communications with Macs can be enabled if we purchase add-on equipment for our network infrastructure.

Williams concluded this discussion by mentioning that the improvements to our network infrastructure over the last few years had were mainly financed by monies provided by the 2000 Higher Education Bond Program, funds from which have now been exhausted. Williams noted that this leaves the university without an established funding source for further development and maintenance of the network infrastructure and that the university must identify a way to insure that those needs will be addressed.

5) Update on TLT (future directions for course management software (CMS))

Breiner reported on the status of CMS at Appalachian, noting that we are currently using WebCT Campus Edition, version 4.1 for course management services. He informed the group that, due to SCT dropping support for the current version of its integration software (the components which automatically create courses, assign course sites to faculty, and enroll students in those sites), ICS would be installing the new Luminis Data Integration Services (LDIS) this summer and that there should be little if any effect on courses being offered during the changeover.

He noted that WebCT will be phasing out the version of WebCT software currently in use at Appalachian over the next one to two years and that the replacement products would represent radical changes from both end user and administrative standpoints. He suggested that the university begin a process to involve faculty and other stakeholders to evaluate whether to migrate to the upcoming WebCT products or to change CMS system altogether. Breiner stated that he would contact the college specialists and other stakeholders to discuss how to start and proceed with gathering the information needed to design a reasonable migration approach. He noted that he can now provide access for interested faculty or staff to WebCT’s current successor product, Vista 3.0, and asked ITAC to help identify volunteers to help evaluate that product and other possible options.

In a related vein, Breiner reported that the UNC Teaching and Learning with Technology Collaborative (TLTC, information available here) would likely sponsor a collaborative effort to install and make available to interested institutions the Sakai open-source CMS (Sakai project information available here). Sakai is being developed by a number of core universities and some 65 “partner” institutions to provide a license-free, full featured course management system, its program code available to any interested institutions at no cost. He stated that the TLTC board members from several UNC constituent institutions expressed enthusiastic interest for establishing a formal relationship between the UNC system and the Sakai organization.

Lastly Breiner reported that the TLTC in conjunction with the Academic Affairs division of the UNC Office of the President were exploring possibilities for establishing a system-wide review service for faculty interested in peer review of their online materials and/or courses. He stated that numerous practitioners of online teaching have expressed interest in establishing something analogous to peer review of publications for online TLT efforts, both to identify credible “best practices” and to promote the appropriate consideration of such efforts in tenure and promotion decisions. He then suggest that interested ITAC members contact him for further information and to participate in some of the ongoing discussions related to this issue.

6) Update on AppLEAP

Williams reported that the AppLEAP project to implement the Sungard SCT academic application suite (AKA Banner) had received some additional resources to help ease some implementation issues that have arisen. The expected deployment timeline includes Banner Finance (July 2005) and Banner Advancement (January 2006), though he noted some issues with a lack of consistency in and a fairly steep learning curve for the reporting features in the Banner Finance package. Despite the reporting concerns, he suggested that the Banner Self Service components, coupled with the user training very soon to begin, will provide much simpler operation than is currently the case with our FRS system.

Williams introduced Toni Becvinovski (Registrar’s Office) to discuss the AppLEAP web site, designed to provide timely information about the AppLEAP project. Becvinovski is developing the site a a central point for dissemination of information and training regarding the project and suggested that his office will coordinate development of training using multiple media and approaches to prevent some of the problems that arose during implementation of the Banner HR package. He announced that a committee had been established to identify and address issues than might otherwise lead to problems with database tables that must be shared by multiple components of the Banner system. The committee will also be investigating some possible service gaps in the Banner Student product over the summer.

Williams stated that, to address the need for improved training for the Banner system, ITS and the AppLEAP team are designing and plan to install a training facility, likely to be available before the end of this summer.

7) Status of inventory on student lab workstations and classroom presentation types

Williams reported that an inventory conducted with the help of the distributed college specialists had determined that Appalachian supports roughly 1500 computers in distributed public laboratories. Follow up are needed to determine whether the labs are open to the general student population or open only to students in certain majors or classes. Williams asked for suggestions for determining what would be appropriate numbers for centrally supported lab computers and for establishing a reasonable mechanism for adding or subtracting machines or labs to that centrally supported group.

He also mentioned a study underway to determine the needs and/or desires for technology in campus classrooms. Since such technology directly impacts student academic activity, the recently approved increase in the Education and Technology (E&T) fees can help provide and maintain those technologies. Williams introduced Jeff Church (ICS) who described a survey soon to be distributed to faculty to help assess what technologies are currently used, which would be used if available, and which would have little utility in the academic arena. He will send the proposed survey to the “Friday Tech Group” for comments and suggestions, and will distribute to faculty after that round of input.

Ed Pekarek (CS) asked whether it might be possible to establish a mechanism whereby purely academic considerations can inserted into any design or change processes involving construction of academic spaces. Breiner Pekarek asked whether he was proposing an “official” ITAC policy recommendation to require such consideration in the D & C process. Pekarek answered that his suggestion at this point was just a suggestion for a better mechanism to insure that academic issues be seriously considered. Bill Ward (AA) suggested that the new position in Space Management and Planning, held currently by Art Rex, would be an appropriate liaison for including such considerations into the design and construction process.

Other business

Williams mentioned to the group that the most recent State Information Resources Auditor’s report required Appalachian to address all of the recommendation therein within six months of the receipt of the report by the university. The end of that period is approaching and its end will see full implementation of the scanning requirements and other recommendations previously reported and described to the ITAC membership.

9) Adjournment

Williams bid the group a good weekend adjourned the meeting at 3:05 PM.