Minutes of the Computing
Advisory Committee Meeting
May 11, 1999
Those attending:
JP Dunn, Patti Cosgrove
(for Al Allen), Steve Etcheson, Brad Willke, Susan Logue (for Carolyn
Snyder), Duke Koch, Geoff Nathan (recorder), David Blakesley, Pierre
Barrette
1) Geoff reported that the
Y2K desktop initiative had ground to a halt as students ran out of
free time to volunteer their efforts. In addition, Mary Wallace's
internship ends May 15 and a new coordinator needs to be chosen. She
and Geoff met with Vice Chancellor Jackson, (future) Vice Chancellor
Guernsey and Vice Chancellor Tweedy. They were persuaded to fund approximately
one thousand hours of student work and three months of GA funds for
a coordinator. Geoff will be responsible for keeping everything running.
2) Faculty Desktop Replacement
Plan
Geoff had heard that some
questions had been raised about the plan passed by the committee.
These included whether individual departments (or perhaps colleges)
should be required to come up with some matching funds. Other questions
included whether it was indeed the case that every faculty member
needed a new computer every three years, and whether there would be
some centralized oversight on the spending of this money. Finally,
the question was apparently raised whether the University had an obligation
to supply its faculty with computers in the first place.
Discussion of these points
followed. Some asked how computer-literate we wanted our students
to be. There was general agreement that computers are now basic communications
and research devices, without which one cannot be a scholar. It was
also pointed out that technology was an IBHE priority. Others pointed
out that three years is a maximum for useful life cycle, and that
computers have become a priority for K-12 as well. It was also mentioned
that Total Cost of Ownership increases with older machines, so that
it may well be a false economy to keep old machines running. In addition,
older computers will not run current software, which we need to be
teaching our students.
A more difficult question
was possible funding sources. Some suggested decreasing somewhat the
amount of the per faculty member grant and requiring departmental
`earnest money'. There followed a discussion about possible supplementary
fees, such as COBA is proposing, but these could not be used to purchase
faculty computers.
Although not mentioned in
our proposal we were reminded that there was need for an infrastructure
replacement plan as well, and Al Allen was asked to supply some figures
for such a plan.
3) Centralized Software
Purchases
Everyone agrees that this
would be a good idea, but the problem is who will coordinate such
a plan. Olga Weidner currently manages site licenses for Autodesk,
SPSS and SAS, but others pointed out that the Purchasing office knows
about what software is being bought. However, probably neither IT
nor Purchasing should make the ultimate recommendation on which software
should be site-licensed.
Another, related question
that came up was whether there could be a clearing house for previewing
software. In addition, there seemed to be some interest in a similar
facility for hardware.
Some suggested that the
ideal situation would be to have the site-licensed software on a central
server. If possible we will invite Steve Daron to a future meeting
to talk about issues that might be involved with software site licenses.
Since a number of issues
have been raised, it was suggested that we meet in smaller subcommittees
and report back. We will institute these committees at the next meeting,
which is set for May 26 at 2 in the Dean's Library Conference Room.
