Back
to Minutes and Agendas
University of California, Berkeley
DRAFT MINUTES OF THE E-BERKELEY STEERING COMMITTEE
Meeting of October 28, 2003
Chancellor’s Conference Room, California Hall
Members present : EVC and Provost Paul Gray, Chair, VC Beth Burnside, Director Jon Conhaim, VC Ed Denton, Student-at-Large representative Jason Dixson, ASUC Representative Michael Heinrich, Director Phyllis Hoffman, VC Jim Hyatt, Assoc. Dean George Johnson for Dean Richard Newton, Director Helen Kelly, Director Rosemary Kim, VP-Designate Catherine Koshland, VP Christina Maslach, Dean Mary Ann Mason, AVC Jack McCredie, Chief Technology Officer Tessa Michaels, VC Horace Mitchell, Director Ralph Moon, Director Barbara Morgan, Professor James Siegrist for Professor Ken Goldberg, Asst. Dean Charles Stoup for Dean Ralph Hexter
Also attending : Dianne Walker, Ted Goode, and Ivor Emmanuel from SISS; Craig Lant, Campus Information Systems Security Officer
1. Welcome and Review of Minutes
Chair Paul Gray opened the meeting with a welcome to student members Michael Heinrich, new ASUC Representative, and Jason Dixson, Student-at-Large Representative. Charis Kaskiris, Graduate Student Representative, was unable to attend. Minutes from the September 18, 2003, meeting were approved as presented.
2. Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)
Ted Goode described the progress made in complying with SEVIS requirements: we have met all Federal mandates. UC's efforts to match the requirements were hampered by ongoing SEVIS system bugs and unannounced changes; particularly problematic is the reinterpretation of SEVIS regulations by the new bureaucracy as Immigration and Naturalization Services is absorbed into the Department of Homeland Security.
As of September 24, 2003, all current F and J visa students had been reported. Ted said he received information today that enforcement will now begin, and this means that the University will need to ensure compliance on a regular basis. Paul Gray asked about any enforcement concerns, and Ted explained that SEVIS has trigger mechanisms to cancel or “complete” files automatically when ending dates occur. Ted said this places a great responsibility on SISS, campus departments, and students to make sure that information is accurate, since the process to reactivate a cancelled file is difficult.
Ted also announced his retirement as of the end of the week, and introduced Dr. Ivor Emmanuel who will take over management of the Berkeley office of Services to International Students and Scholars (SISS). Dr. Emmanuel was most recently Director of International Student and Scholar Services at the University of Illinois.
Dianne Walker expressed her appreciation for the individuals in other departments who assisted SISS in the SEVIS project throughout the difficult implementation period. Thousands of entries were made to meet the compliance deadline of August 1, 2003, and then registration data for new students arriving in September had to be added immediately. The major goals now are to improve the online form for gathering data on students, add a web interface for status and information changes, and put important dates for students into BearFacts.
Dianne then discussed a new project for visiting scholars called VISAS (Visiting Internet Scholar's Application System). She referred to the article included in the packet regarding the welcome assistance provided by EECS students who designed an online application form for the J-1 Visa, allowing departments to send the url for the form to visiting scholars. The form will be secured by CalNet authentication, and fully implemented by the end of 2004 (if funding is available).
Paul Gray thanked Dianne and Ted for their work to bring the campus into compliance with SEVIS requirements, with special thanks to Ted for his 35 years of service to the campus.
3. Preliminary Discussion of Campus IT Strategic Plan
Jack McCredie handed out slides with “Suggestions for Planning for IT at UC Berkeley,” asking for input from the Steering Committee. He briefly outlined the history of IT planning over the last 10 years, beginning with the Berkeley IT environment and challenges in 1993, shortly after Jack arrived on campus.
In 1993 IST developed a long-range plan internally; it focused on infrastructure needs such as upgrading the network, redesigning crucial administrative applications, and improving staff training. In 1994, the Academic Planning Board, chaired jointly by Jack and Alice Agogino, looked at instructional technology and academic computing on campus. In 1998, a report produced by the Commission on Campus Computing, chartered by Carol Christ and chaired by Calvin Moore, outlined faculty computing needs, and further IST planning was based on that report plus input from campus focus groups. In 2000, the Chancellor chartered the e-Berkeley Initiative at a Cabinet planning retreat following Cabinet meetings at Cisco Systems.
Jack then focused on the 2003 University of California IT environment. The major change over the past 10 years has been the web's coming of age, which has influenced and enabled most of the IT developments in the UC system. The UCOP IT Infrastructure Task Force, which has resurfaced after several years, listed these major systemwide challenges recently:
• Systemwide standards and policies
• Instructional technology
• Digital content management and preservation
• Scholarly interaction
• ERP administrative applications (e.g. payroll)
• Network infrastructure development
• Information security and protection
• Decreased funding (e.g. Digital California Project)
Jack used these issues as a point of departure for the UC Berkeley IT challenges, noting the key things that need to be worked on in the near future and long range. A major improvement in the IT situation on this campus is the new operations center at 2195 Hearst. The campus takes ownership of the new building this week, and the operations center is scheduled to move into the building over Memorial Day weekend 2004. Jack said the new center would greatly enhance campus IT services and make a 24x7x365 service model a reality.
Jack then offered some information on nationwide IT challenges facing higher education, quoting a recent book by Duderstadt, Atkins and Van Houweling, Higher Education in the Digital Age, which points out that universities' use of technology has “thus far been at the margins, to provide modest additional resources to classroom pedagogy or to attempt to extend the physical reach of our current classroom-centered, seat-time-based teaching paradigm” and “the very institutions that have played such a profound role in developing the digital technology now reshaping our world are the most resistant to reshaping their activities to enable its effective use.” Jack listed four national IT studies addressing the changes in higher education that lie ahead including a call to action by the National Science Board ( Science and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21 st Century ). Jack said UC Berkeley needs to decide whether to pursue projects such as the National Lambda Rail (advanced networking and grid computing); he noted that the UCB faculty is not well represented in groups developing these large national projects.
Jack said that planning is essential to meet the IT needs of the new campus strategic thrust areas, such as nanotechnology and computational biology. Another important consideration for planning is the study by the McKinsey consultants, brought to campus by the Chancellor to address gaps and overlaps in administrative services. McKinsey recommendations have been considered in recent organizational changes; other ideas could be usefully applied to the IT infrastructure.
Jack described ideas coming from meetings with Ken Goldberg, Chair of the Academic Senate Committee on Computing and Communications (COMP), as a result of COMP's proposal for faculty and administration to work together to develop a new and ongoing Strategic Plan for Computing and Communications. Jack and Ken agree that a strategic plan should define IT requirements for the accomplishment of goals described in the Academic Strategic Plan, with a focus on a few key strategic questions. They think that the work of formulating goals for a plan could be handled within the existing committee structure, such as COMP, the IST Management Team, the Information Technology Architecture Committee (ITAC), the Administrative and Student Services Computing Subcommittee (ASSCS), the Educational Technology Committee, the e-Berkeley Implementation Task Force (EBITF), and the e-Berkeley Steering Committee. Ken would like to create a “living website” to manage the process and track developments.
Jack asked for input about the role the Steering Committee wishes to take in the planning process. George Johnson asked for a timeline for completion of a draft strategic plan; Jack replied that May 2004 seems appropriate. Paul Gray commented that the planning process seems to be lacking input from users and has a top-down feel. Jack answered that Ken is working with COMP to design a survey to gather information from faculty and/or department chairs about IT needs. Jim Siegrist noted that COMP's focus for the survey is research and teaching, not infrastructure. Jon Conhaim suggested we think about the kinds of collaboration that might be valuable as a way to focus our efforts.
Ralph Moon asked about the planning horizon for the proposed plan (five years). Paul Gray asked for ideas about how the Steering Committee could be of use in this joint Senate/administration project. Ed Denton noted that outside input might also be needed; several members agreed that this would be useful down the road. Jack sees the use of the web to bring together ideas and communicate about work being done as a way to manage the planning process, one that would continue to change as needs change. Tessa Michaels said she thinks the use of standing committees to collect data and feed the plan is a good idea. Paul thanked Jack and the Senate COMP committee for the work on this important project.
4. Implementation of e-Berkeley Symposium Recommendations
Christina Maslach reminded the committee that the first e-Berkeley Symposium was held last May and the next will be in April 2004. She related the challenge from the first Symposium to Jack's presentation: once the ideas have been gathered, how do we accomplish the work that needs to be done? Many people need to be involved, and it is difficult to know who owns some areas affected by the Symposium recommendations. This is a question of project management, and Christina asked for direction from the Steering Committee on how to move forward.
The Symposium focused on large enrollment courses, primarily lower division. The concept developed by the BRIDGE (Berkeley Resources for Internet Delivery of General Education) project was brought forward by the Symposium, i.e., re-thinking the way technology and pedagogy are used to deliver large lower division courses. Christina provided an excerpt on “Reinventing Large-Enrollment Courses” from the WASC UC Berkeley Educational Effectiveness Report , listing challenges “that work against rethinking the large-enrollment course,” and recommendations for key changes identified by faculty.
Christina drew attention to the recommendation to “Streamline systems and reduce administrative burdens” (#8, page 29). The Symposium discussion centered on management of the volume of administrative work caused by increasing enrollment, and has resulted in a project to create an online gradebook as part of CourseWeb.
Christina also commented on the recommendation to “Increase the use of instructional technology and provide appropriate technological support in large-enrollment courses” (#7, page 29). Many detailed recommendations under this heading are about providing technological help for faculty who are trying to create better ways of delivering their courses. In response to this issue, the Council of Academic Partners (CAP) was created to bring together expertise from the Library, the Office of Educational Development, Educational Technology Services and other groups, with the idea of forming a “concierge team” to assess the technological needs of a particular faculty member and provide help in changing a specific course. A recurring theme in all the recommendations concerns cultural changes to recognize and reward innovation in teaching.
Christina said the real question is how to implement these recommendations and ideas: who's going to be accountable? Philip Stark has agreed to continue as Chair of the Educational Technology Committee, which will prioritize the Symposium recommendations and assess ease of implementation, but how will we proceed beyond that point? Beth Burnside asked whether some of these projects could be assigned to Academic Senate committees; Christina replied that these committees are good for giving advice but not for managing implementation.
Jon Conhaim noted that this theme is occurring in many e-Berkeley areas: four or five people may be “in charge” of a project but they may have different visions, and projects get bogged down if there is no consensus. Beth suggested a Special Assistant to the EVCP for each major initiative. Paul Gray commented on the large scope of the projects (which are all different and involve different parts of the campus), but could they be prioritized and handled one at a time? Jon outlined the “concierge team” idea a bit further; this might give more resources to faculty without costing a lot. Christina said that efforts to leverage external resources will also continue.
Paul Gray authorized Christina to move forward using the successful WASC model, and congratulated her on the successful outcome of the accreditation review.
5. e-Berkeley Policy
Jim Siegrist reported that the Senate Committee on Computing & Communications (COMP) reviewed the e-Berkeley policy and commented through a memo to the Public Information Unit at IST, which gave a detailed response to each of COMP's questions. COMP is satisfied with the response and the process.
The Steering Committee approved the policy (and the word “interim” will be removed from the title). Jack McCredie said that awareness of the policy would be communicated through presentations at group and committee meetings across campus, including the Council of Deans, control unit heads, and the Controller's policy coordination group, as well as memos and email.
6. Minimum Security Standards for Networked Devices
Jack said this topic has been discussed with COMP, the Council of Deans, and other committees. There are still some rough edges but the campus culture about security must change, since any machine can infect the rest of the network. Last summer's experiences with viruses and worms cost many campuses hundreds of thousands of dollars for recovery, and these were relatively benign attacks; the next one could wipe out systems. The most important idea to get across with the new policy is that every individual is responsible for security on the computer he or she uses.
Craig Lant, Campus Information Systems Security Officer, said the Blaster worm infected over 2,000 computers, and each one took 4-5 hours to clean up. He stressed that systems set up to install security patches automatically were unaffected. He said the policy that CISC (Campus Information Security Committee) has written requires that standards be met with regard to computer security; those computers not meeting standards can be disconnected from the network or treated as an exception after review by CISC. Craig noted that the definitions of the eight proposed standards are precise but sometimes difficult to understand, and it is CISC's intent to create an implementation guide to go along with the standards.
One of the straightforward standards is the requirement to run anti-virus software. Jack noted that, even though we have had a site license for two years and the software is free to users, only half of our computers are running the software.
Craig said that the one item missing from the standards is a “firewall” requirement, which will be added at a later date when a vendor for firewall software has been selected. Craig also said that operating systems must be upgraded to current versions (Windows 98, for example, is not OK because Microsoft has stopped issuing security patches). Mary Ann Mason asked about the time allowed for software implementation by departments; Craig responded that there will be a one-year grace period, during which time the Security and Network Services group (SNS) will scan the campus network for vulnerable systems and notify departments about problems.
Craig added that a “C@B Secure” CD (Connecting@Berkeley Security Supplement) will soon be available, so that people can automatically “turn on” the appropriate security environment. He recommended that a central service of “helper” system administrators be funded to assist small groups that don't have their own computer support staff. Craig would also like to see a way of isolating computers before they are allowed to connect to the campus network, to allow for a scan to ensure security software is in place.
Helen Kelly reported from EBITF that they endorse the policy, but they feel it is most important to have implementation guidelines. They think the CD idea is very good, but they would also like central campus support to help people bring their computers into compliance. They are concerned about visitors' wireless usage posing a security problem for the campus, and they think a security review of non-AirBears wireless networks on campus should be done. EBITF also endorses the idea of a “checkup” service before computers are connected to the network.
Jack proposed that the Steering Committee review the policy and discuss approval at the January meeting, when the implementation guidelines will be ready.
Michael Heinrich asked how the policy will be communicated to students. Jack said communicating with the 5,500 resident hall students is easy but we don't yet know how to reach the rest of the students; that will be a task for the implementation year.
7. Announcements
• Second e-Berkeley Symposium
Jon Conhaim briefly presented plans for the next e-Berkeley Symposium, to be held in April at the earliest. The focus will be on student services. A new program committee will be brought together; anyone interested in participating should let Jon know. Jon is interviewing department managers about key issues that should be addressed at the symposium, and he will also talk to the ASUC and Graduate Assembly.
• Berkeley Email Replacement Team Update
Jack McCredie gave an update on the BERT project to replace the current UCLink email system. The url for BERT is http://bert.berkeley.edu . A pilot project will begin soon in IST, and the new system is expected to be in place for the entire campus early in 2004.
• Systemwide Information Technology Leadership Council
Jack reported that JOG (Joint Operations Group) has been replaced by the ITLC (Information Technology Leadership Council), a new UCOP committee formed to include chief information officers from UC campuses, the medical centers, and the national labs. The first meeting of the new group will be in January.
• Information Technology Architecture Committee
Jack announced that Ralph Moon (Library) will step down as Chair of the Information Technology Architecture Committee (ITAC) after serving for several years; a new chair is being sought for this important campus committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Future Meetings
Thursday, January 29, 2004, 10:00 – noon, Chancellor's Conference Room, California Hall
Monday, April 12, 2004, 10:00 – noon, Chancellor's Conference Room, California Hall
__________________________________________________________________
Email group: e-berkeley_steering@listlink.berkeley.edu
Please send corrections and comments to: Sheila Press, avc_asst@uclink.berkeley.edu