CCC Home --> Meetings --> Minutes --> Meeting Notes: February 26, 1998
C.C.C. meeting Notes:
February 26, 1998
In attendance:
Neil Parker - Medicine (nparker@ucla.edu 5-6774 ),
Jason Frand - Management (jfrand@anderson.ucla.edu
5-0522 )
Gregg Kitch - SEAS (kitch@seas.ucla.edu 5-0471 )
Mike Vasser - Life Sciences (mvasser@lifesci.ucla.edu 6-7567 )
Eric Chang - Public Policy (eric@ucla.edu 5-6053 )
Karie Masterson - Humanities (karie@humnet.ucla.edu
5-3981 )
John DeGolyer - Law (John@law.ucla.edu 5-4689 )
Tom Phelan - Soc Sci (phelan@ssc.ucla.edu 5-0522 )
Daniel Tran - Arts and Architecture (dtran@ucla.edu 5-1336
)
Phil Ender - Education (ender@gseis.ucla.edu 5-1944
)
We opened the meeting by going around the circle and introducing each other and spending a
little bit of time bringing each other up to speed. Gregg Kitch joined us from Seas net and brings
a great perspective to the group.
1) Mission Statement:
In the first half hour of the meeting we had an extensive discussion of the Mission statement of
the group, engaged in re-editing the mission statement which is re-writen and posted to the list
serve for final approval. The mission statement was enhanced to focus upon the information sharing
and co-operative potential of the group.
Some concerns were raised that the group might be represented by a political agenda rather than
an agenda of information sharing and using our unique level of expertise to focus on our local
problems. It was agreed around the table that our primary interest is in sharing problems and
information and using our expertise to solve problems and help one another as well as function in
an advisory capacity.
2) Nomination:
We discussed bringing other people into the group specifically a couple of nominations. During the
discussion we developed two general criteria: The first criteria is that we want to keep the group
small so that it is effective. It was felt that the group would become less than effective if we
became larger than a group of 10 to 12 people. The second criteria is that members of the group
should be a leader who is responsible for the use of technology and represents a school or division
with a large number of users - generally around 1,000 or greater users. As we went around the
circle it was felt that we generally had the right people in the group. It was also felt that the
group should represent academic divisions rather than administrative units. We specifically want to
focus on deployment of technology in units with a strong academic mission. We raised a general
consencous that we would close nominations for the group over the course of the next two meetings.
Later this was modified in case other strong candidates come forward who we may have overlooked.
The main concern is that we need to spend our very limited time focusing on our problems and issues
rather than our formation and governmental issues. There is also a feeling that the group can
remain flexible and can form sub-groups and sub committees. For example we may want to form up a
committee that includes all of our network administrators to discuss technical issues and gain a
better understanding of campus. Another example is that we may want to form up our support managers
to see if they have ideas or thoughts on better campus-wide support mechanisms.
3) Announcing the CCC:
We decided to form up a web-site hosted by Karie. I will write up the material and Tom and others
will edit and HTML the notes. Once we are comfortable with our site we might ask other campus
groups to provide pointers to our group. We also discussed the concept that various members of the
campus community would welcome the knowledge that there is a group such as ours, which is dedicated
to sharing technical information regardless of discipline and attempting to discuss and find
solutions to common problems.
4) Meetings for information Gathering:
In earlier meetings we have discussed the idea that some of our meetings might be dedicated to
information gathering and having senior members of campus come and visit our group and talk with us
about academic and technical directions for campus. As the group discussed this idea, we decided to
postpone this aspect of our activity and begin to focus on our main objectives. And after we have
"jelled as a group" to invite members of the UCLA community to address us. This idea I gather is
postponed but should be raised again in a few weeks.
5) Further Issues identification:
- Faculty Backlash to laptops in the classroom - students surfing and emailing
- Certain faculty request to take technology out of the classroom - it is disruptive
- The difficulties to faculty of pushing material to web sites
- The idea that the cream of the crop students benefit from the use of technology only the
leading students engage in the use of the technology
- Plagiarism - students cut and paste material from various sites to pull together reports and
papers - sharing amongst the students
- Posting of students private materials posting of a students personal statement
- Stealing of Faculty ideas from the web - no level of -------
- Moves to upgrade the faculty and some faculty refuse to let their offices get wired.
- Faculty canít bail out of the pervasive use of technology
- Copyright issues
- Money - where to draw the line. How much is spent on technology.
Further Issues:
- Standards
- Copyright
- Technology Issues
- Setting limits on Faculty Development
- Draw boundaries on Services
- Understaffing - Runnng on a shoestring
- Equipment Issues
- Rights and Obligations of Faculty members: Academic Senate involvement in the ideas of a
technology Rights and Responsibilities
- Standards and Charges
- Starship Troopers - We represent the good of the whole and are juggling and balancing the
service needs of a large organization. We represent and balance a large constituency.
- Student representation and ideas for the use of technology - The use and adoption of a student
based technology committee. The educational technology department. Meeting idea would be to have
students join us and give us their feedback on different uses of technology.
- Ideas on what technology are coming down the road.
- Internet Two
- Deferred Maintenance: What are the costs of not using deferred maintenance? What are the costs
of deferred maintenance? How do we build them into the planning cycles?
- Equipment purchases. >
Issues to report and discuss on the Viptg committee:
- HR Issues - what can we do to improve our chance of staff retention, and we are not just
talking about money here. Training opportunities.
- Central and Local issues. We decided to continue and return to our earlier discussion of
central and local computing services. What do we really need from central computing
- OAC cutbacks? The State of OAC from 55 to 39 people. The use of supercomputing at OAC what is
the future of this shared resource. BOL is seen as a critical service to some of us, while others
of us want out of the ISP business.
6) Wrap up and thoughts on our next meeting:
Neil volunteered to host the next meeting. We also discussed the idea that the person who would
host the meeting would spend a little time discussing their environment and plans so that
eventually all of us will become familiar with the other computing environments on campus. It was
thought in the next meeting we would discuss more issue identification and solutions for those
issues.
Please send corrections and other thoughts on these meeting notes, I am more than happy to adopt
any changes or correct any of my subjective impressions. Your humble scribe: John.
|
