Meeting Minutes 10-31-07
One time funds for Technology (AKA the Bowerman Fund) discussion: Each proposer was given time to explain their proposal and have a question/answer period. In addition to the text outlined in the discussion page, the following issues were raised on each proposal;
- Google Mini (Luke Bowerman) Staff implementations? None once it's setup 3k to 7k cost for appliance, minimal staff setup and maintenance (probably closer to the 7K cost given the number of pages) benefits entire community for accurate searches $500/yr maintenance estimated - Advancement could cover possibly, if cost of appliance were covered by ITCH.
- Digital Content Repository (Rip Heminway) Cost temporary staff to do a pilot project including needs assessment, requirement settings, and coordinate needs in a single package. Would take up the entire 78k. Could there actually be a product after a year or only a recommendation? Consensus was that (based on CMS) there would only be time to do a needs assessment, requirements gathering and testing of platforms in the form of a pilot in the 1 year timeframe.
- Faculty Institute Expansion (Rip Heminway) would double the ability for train faculty as well as provide $$ for a summit on IT literacy.
- Print Management System (Rip Heminway) Important issue but hard to get a handle on the cost Lots of ideas about possible direction but no cost available. Will probably have to wait for the result of the group that is doing the campus printing analysis to come up with a recommendation for a direction before actual $ figures can be applied.
- MetaSearch and openurl (Paul McMillin) Software or hosted service. Trial 8k - 18k. Library would gauge success and hopefully fund continuation if after one year it proved successful.
- Jabber Proposal - See admin iTCH recommendations for details
- HDTV - Peter proposed an additional project to purchase equipment for testing HDTV format issues in regards to converting and viewing HD content that is currently not possible on campus. See the discussion page for more details.
Ideas about prioritization criteria were gathered which included ugency, population served, cost, benefit, risk of not doing. It was then thought do do a first cut vote to see how the projects fell out before having to rate each on a criteria (which is what it would recommend the Core do - criteria ranking that is) Prioritization was done by each member casting 3 votes for their preferred project. This was followed by dropping out the bottom two proposals and then each member again casting two votes. The tallies are listed below;
Aaron will provide list of requirements to Admin and Academic ITCH groups before the core meets so that there'll be an opportunity to compare the projects on an equal basis (same criteria).
The next ITCH Core meeting where this will be decided will be Nov 14.
Other Items:
- OS Lab - Plea for resources in the continuation of the advanced computer science students that are currently mired in the basement of Lab I. Rip promised that they will be integrated into the annual lab replacement cycle. Aaron also mentioned that now that there is a regular server replacement cycle and funding in place, old servers could be used by this group. At this time there was no sense that the group could help with space concerns, the channels that the OS students are pursuing is appropriate (research space through the Lab Research process that is currently in place with Ken Tabbutt and Marty Beagle). ITCH will bring these concerns to this group though as a way to deal with on-going construction issues in their space.
Discussion items for next meeting
- Budget listing of Academic project for next biennium request process
- Office 2007 and Leopard rollouts/file format issues
