Minutes - September 9, 2005
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.
