University Technology Advisory Committee (UTAC)
http://www.csuchico.edu/ires/plans/utac
Meeting Minutes
Friday, October 21, 2011
10:00am, MLIB 338
ATTENDING TEAM MEMBERS AND GUESTS
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Joe Alexander
Debra Barger (Jeff Layne for Debra)
Sarah Blakeslee
Scott Claverie
Kathy Fernandes
Cris Guenter
Beth Kissinger
Paul Melcon
Andrea Mox
Brian Oppy
Bill Post
Jerry Ringel
Tom Rosenow
Seema Sehrawat
Phyllis Weddington
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Brooke Banks
Wendi Beane
Rebecca Cagle
Scott Dickerson
Lorraine Gardiner
Ben Juliano
Ben Levitt
Andy Miller
Jaime Nelson (Deborah Furgason for Jaime)
E.K. Park (Matt Thomas for E.K.)
Dan Reed
LeRita Ringel
Mike Spiess
James Tyler
Joe Wills
Jeremy Olguin
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1.
Announcements and Additions/Changes to Agenda
New member, Matt Thomas, introduced himself (attending as rep for Dean of graduate school).
Bill Post announced that all should have received an e-mail regarding the launch of SharePoint. He said the ITSS
knowledge base regarding this is up and he encouraged everyone to read it. Please provide any feedback (to
Andrea Mox). Rollout is Nov 14th. Ben Juliano thinks maybe the campus community will question where
SharePoint fits (among all the other things being launched currently). Bill said the IT Strategic plan answers
some of the questions. Some BB Vista communities could be using SP but we are not forcing anybody to use SP.
He suggested the need for a discussion re: all the different tools out there. Cris Guenter said having some solid
examples would be helpful; she thinks there will be faculty who never heard of SharePoint. Also, tell people why
they would want to use it (instead of other tools out there.) Bill said he sees this committee assisting in getting
out the message about SP. UTAC will have a SharePoint site. Joe Alexander said in browsing through Microsoft,
he read that Firefox and Safari don’t allow for SharePoint. Bill said from the delivery side, SharePoint is
available using those browsers.
Andrea announced they almost ready to go live for the iPad/Tablet support and procurement site. They are
finalizing it now. A non-standard procurement of an iPad (3G) for a faculty member took place and was
approved. The procurement process will include a component for purchasing apps. She is looking for a
department to work with for initial set up/testing. Apple is making iOS apps easily available for purchase in the
faculty realm.
Sarah Blakeslee said there is a series of webinars regarding Google searches with very useful information. She
said they are archiving the ones that have already taken place and will send the link to the committee. There are 4
more left, all on different topics.
2.
Approval of Meeting Minutes from September 16, 2011
Approved unanimously.
3.
IT Status Sheet Review/Discussion (in case there are any last-minute updates)
N/A
4.
Whitelisting Update (Andrea Mox)
Andrea said they are making good progress and that they are moving the pilot phase to a wider group with the
Library staff will go live next week. There are approximately 200 machines in the pilot group; 70 are in “secure”
mode (which means if the system doesn’t know about an application you are trying to install, it stops it, then, a
team of people are alerted and the app is tested to ensure it is safe. The user is contacted and either allowed to
download or told otherwise. Process is fast.) For example, Andrea said she has software updates that include
plug-ins; if the system doesn’t recognize the plug-in, it will be blocked. Once it is approved, however, no other
campus person will get blocked when trying to download that same plug-in. Andrea said they are looking for
faculty volunteers to be involved in the pilot – contact her if you are interested. She said having faculty involved
will help to build the list. Andrea said the plan is to roll this out to campus around June; by that time, it should be
very rare that an app is blocked. She said we don’t care what you are running, as long as it is safe. Volunteers
from meeting include Cris Guenter, Mike Spiess, and Brian Oppy.
5.
Virtual Software Delivery (VSD) project update (Andrea Mox)
Andrea said they have been pilot testing the Citrix environment for VSD and they are focused on the lab
environment right now. They have had a few faculty testing this. The feedback is positive. SPSS folks are using
it and it seems to be working well. She said the VMware reps were here, and a test instance for VM is up. She
said they are trying to get additional faculty involved to work / test this. She said they thought Citrix was going
to be a clear winner, however, after meeting with VMware, maybe not. She said Sac State is using VMware also.
A reminder to the Mac users, this is running Windows applications only. However, she said, one faculty member
has two students using Photoshop in Windows testing this. Also, she said there are ARC GIS people testing also.
Mike Spiess said he sees this really being helpful when he wants to have students try specific software, but
doesn’t want to make students have to purchase it.
Jeremy Olguin said he wants to test it with Kurzweil, (they are moving to a web version of Kurzweil). Ben asked
how licensing issues come into play between VMware and Citrix. Andrea said because we are already a strong
VMware shop, this might be a big bonus for us. Application licensing is still a challenge, however. Having
vendors catch up with this is a challenge. Most costly is the Client Access License (CAL), and the Chancellor’s
Office is working on this. Cris Guenter asked if Mac versus PC mattered - Andrea said no. On the iPad, there are
actual applications that give you access to virtual software use.
Andrea said the ability to easily store work is a challenge for students. We need to figure out a network storage
solution for them.
The roadmap for the VSD project is that by next fall we hope to have an open door for faculty being able to use
this in classes. Getting students into Active Directory is a challenge (which is needed for this to work).
6.
Discussion: Effects of Academic Reorganization on information and technology needs (Mike Spiess)
Mike asked how the academic reorganization is going to affect technology. He said he has concerns because as
departments are moved, their goals (as departments) will possibly change. Bill said that staff has been asking
questions about the reorganization especially; they are concerned that if we go from seven colleges to less, what
happens to the staff who have been supporting the colleges that collapse into one college? Also, they see their
work load growing, as well as no real cost savings. Bill said it is important to figure out how the workload of
staff remains realistic. We need to find automation to help, and some policy changes to help (SharePoint is a
good example of how to help).
Another issue that has been discussed is regarding facilities; lab space is important to people. Bill said virtual
labs will give flexibility in some areas, but not in others. Budget reductions play a big part in the changes also.
We need to find ways to flourish in spite of this. How do we put the right groups of people together to work with
each other in order to strategically still get all the work done? We need to leverage technology to assist in getting
the work done.
Ben said ideally technology should not be impacted that much. In ATEC, Bill said, we are taking all the things
faculty have been telling us that are good, and trying to implement them as best practices. We need to do the
same on the administrative side. We have to be advocates for technology.
Mike said he believes that the decentralization of (administrative) support has a big impact on faculty. In the
larger generic subjects (e.g. Econ 101), there are more readily available tools (e.g. animated presentations, etc.)
than the smaller, less generic subject areas. All of this is worth the ongoing discussion; how we are going to
continue to address this as a campus is important. Bill said as far as the reorganization goes, technology is being
discussed. We have to figure out how to use/leverage technology to change the current paradigm. Bill added that
students’ expectations of their learning environment have changed dramatically and technology plays a big role
in this.
Ben said this may be a good time to survey the faculty and staff regarding technology. Bill said Brooke has used
a particular survey in the past, and will be redesigning this. It was suggested UTAC work with IRES staff
regarding this.
Mike said the reorganization should be addressing where we want to be in 10 years (especially technologically).
Tom said we still need a process to address changes; also, we need to have a 360 degree view of all the new
processes initiated. What are the consequences / ramifications of the changes and how do they affect other areas?
Bill said this group can be more involved in that; he believes this group can make a big difference.
7.
Discussion: How can we improve the visibility of UTAC on campus? (Ben Juliano)
Ben said when presenting the draft Information & Technology Strategic Plan at the Educational Policies &
Procedures Committee (EPPC) of the Academic Senate, a few people didn’t know what UTAC was. We have
representatives on UTAC from various colleges; maybe we can start visiting colleges (at their meetings) and start
spreading the word about technology and how UTAC can help. Letting people know there is someone in their
unit they can go to with ideas, suggestions, etc. would be helpful.
Bill said if Ben is willing to go to each college, he can send a rep from IRES as well. This will also help the new
CIO to learn about campus-wide technology issues/concerns, etc. Also, communicating to the colleges what our
initiatives / project with a sense of priority is a good things. Coming through UTAC could be very effective.
If any unit would like to have someone from UTAC and IRES meet with your college, e-mail Ben or Jaime. Bill
said IRES will do any staff work to help facilitate that.
8.
Other
Brian asked who will be filling the seat of CIO after Bill has retired (in December). Bill said Sandra will
probably reach out to people to find out who is interested in filling the slot as interim CIO, and will probably
appoint somebody to take over in January. Permanent replacement will probably come on board July 2012. Bill
said he thinks the job announcement will be posted as soon as next week.
Ben said preview day is tomorrow.
Cris said open studios art tour begins tomorrow; will be this weekend and next weekend.
Adjourned at 11:15.
TO DO LIST SUMMARY
#
Task
1.
2.
3.
4.
FUTURE MEETINGS
Date: November 18, 2011
Responsible Party
Time: 10-11:30am
Due Date
Place: MLIB 338
Status