Minutes - September 6, 2002
1:30- 3:00 pm - I.G. Greer Room 224
Persons Present:
Ex officio members: Jeff Williams (Chair), Doug May (ACS)
Voting members: Matthew McNaney (for Brian Brown, Student Services), Clayton Cooke (Systems & Special Projects), Beth Davison (Arts & Sciences), Gabe Fankhauser (School of Music), Al Harris (College of Business), Kevin Howell (Fine & Applied Arts), Greg Lovins (Business Affairs) Thomas Bennett (for Lynne Lysiak, Belk Library), Ed Pekarek (Arts & Sciences), Richard Riedl (Education), Wilber Ward (Academic Affairs).
Guests Attending: Steve Levin (Electronic Student Services), Tom Leonard (University Advancement), Steve Hopper (Information Technology Services - Applications Group), Tom Van Gilder (Arts & Sciences), Ray Pittman (Systems & Special Projects), Terry Combs (Information Technology Services - Systems), Steve Breiner (Information Technology Services - Instructional Computing, recorder)
1)
2)
3)
4) Network status / security assessment
David Hayler reported to the group regarding network bandwidth. He stated that network traffic at the start of the semester was roughly what had been anticipated. Don Rankins (Registrar) asked about problems that his group, who use Instant Messaging (IM) for realtime communications with one another, had experienced with connections being dropped periodically. Hayler stated that the issue was likely the result of certain bandwidth issues with the way that IM was implemented by most clients. Len Johnson (HRS) stated that his group used Yahoo IM and wondered whether it moght represent security issues for the kinds of conversations needed by HRS. Hayler suggested that, at present, IM should not be considered secure. Ed Pekarek (CS) asked what kinds of secure network solutions were being considered for access from outside the university. To this, Hayler answered that Appalachian was moving toward a model that would allow general border access for IP-exposed machines, and that the university’s “core” servers would be accessible from outside via secure VPN (Virtual Private Network). Williams mentioned that Tom Culver, head of Network Support Services, was absent from the meeting due to a UNC-wide conference on specifically these issues.
5) Status of printing in student labs
Doug May (ACS) reported that the original goal of the Pharos printing system, to reduce waste in printing, was quite successful to date, while keeping the per-page costs to the 3¢. Current printing statistics indicate that printing at University labs are forecast to approached 2.5 million, versus the 6 million that would havbe been in keeping with historical rates. He reiterated (reference previous reports) that the 3¢ costs represent a significant subsidy of the estimate actual amortized costs of 6 to 6-1/2¢ per page, and were actually quite a bargain for students as compared to estimates of “cheap” inkjet printing at 8 to 9¢ per page. He noted that these statistics were posted on the Pharos printing system web page and Pekarek suggested that those statistics be distributed to the Council of Chairs. Brian Brown (Student Dev.) asked whether it might make sense in the current budget situation to consider raising the per-page charge to cover the actual costs of printing. May replied that it may, indeed, be appropriate to reexamine the cost/subsidy issue, particularly if we encounter a trend toward students fully using their subsidized allocations (200 pages each), resulting in the unaffordable net output of roughly 4 million copies.
Hayler asked whether “private” labs, such as those in Career Development and the Registrar’s Office, were aware of all of the changes that had been made to public printing. May replied in the affirmative and that there only a few labs “out there” that were not charging for printing… most of those were secure. Rankins asked whether it might be possible to include in the Pharos mechanism two terminals used by students for printing out schedules — during registration there are typically 10 to 12 students lined up at the terminals to do so. May replied that it would be relatively simple to add the terminals to Pharos on an ad hoc basis. Dick Riedl (RCOE) asked whether issues related to print cards had been addressed for students on campus mainly at night. May replied that ACS personnel had remained available nights and that some had visited some night classes to assure that the issue was addressed - only the latter solution seemed to be effective.
6) Banner Implementation (ASU and UNC system)
Banner HRS (from SCT, Inc.) is now being put into place on campus with an anticipated deployment in January, 2003. The many customizations and “tweaks” needed at Appalachian are moving rapidly ahead. Williams reported that the UNC System has decided to adopt the entire Banner suite (HRS, FRS, SIS, DEV) as its standard, with data from all schools ultimately (over a 5-year phaseover) being made available to GA for reporting purposes. The proposal has received approval from the NC Office of State Budget and Management.
7) Password changes through web interface
Williams reported that Appalachian now required password changes every 90 days for general users and every 30 days for those with system management responsibilities. He reported that, in order to ease pressures on the Technical Support staff, a web-based interface was being created for “self service” password synchronization between VMS and AppalNET, and would be deployed in the very near future.
Current issues with VMS/AppalNET and Email migration options
Rankins asked whether the redesign of the main Appalachian home page was near completion. Willims responded that the redesigned site was currently under review by Bob Shaffer (Public Affairs). After that review, Williams anticipates taking the design to the Administrative Cabinet for final adoption.
9) Discussion of IT policy challenges / changes
Pekarek reported that there had been expressions of concern by various department chairs that there was no formal refresh cycle established for faculty computers and that some faculty were unable to run current versions of some software. Bill Ward (Academic Affairs) noted, in response, that over the last several years, Academic Affairs has provided sufficient funding to departments to assure that every faculty member would have a resonably capable computer. He stated further that, given that funding, there was no reason for any faculty member to presently be using a machine incapable of running current browser and other software.
Brown suggested that the University should move toward an accessibility model that would require all web pages to run under the Lynx text-based browser software. Steve Breiner (ICS) contended that there were many kinds of educationally useful information that simply could not be displayed under such constraints.
10) AppalNET update/demo
Steve Breiner (ICS) gave a brief demo of the new AppalNET system and several of its features. Williams commented on the strategic directions that the new system supports, including replacing certain e-mail distributions with targeted announcements, intent to incorporate document management capabilities in the future and other issues.
11) Other business items
Doug May asked for advice and consideration of a policy regarding ACS’ technical support personnel handling (repairing, backing up or otherwise supporting) users’ MP3 audio files when equipment or Operating Systems are repaired or updated. May stated that ACS has generally refused to deal with those types of files when it is clear that their use is not university related.To prompts discussion of the issue, May volunteered to distribute proposed wording for a policy to deal with the issue.
May next reported that ACS had been asked numerous times about which software was available for installation on machines privately owned by faculty and staff under Appalachian’s various site licenses. May stated that only 4 packages, Microsoft Office, McAfee VirusScan, SAS, and SPSS, were subject to such license. ACS will post this information on its web site and in the ACS Walk-In Help Center. Pekarek asked if there are institutional licenses available that would open options for students to use those software packages. May replied that the university would have to subsidize up to $200,000 in additional licensing costs to make that service available, and that such costs are currently prohibitive in that regard. Brown suggested that Sun Microsystem’s Star Office might be a viable alternative to the Microsoft products, especially for students and Graduate Assistants. May replied that that option might be less attractive than it originally seems due to compatibility issues and the fact that costs for Star Office would be roughly comparable to Microsoft’s given our current discount structure
12) Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:15 PM
