Present: Amy Betz, Susan Bustetter, Lin Crowley, Thad Curtz, Amy Greene, Rip Heminway, Aaron Kruse, Lee Lyttle, Erik Ordway, Issac Overcast, Aaron Powell, Jonathan Maye, John Mcgee, David Metzler, Peter Randlette, Rob Rensel, Richard Weiss
Also: Dick Clintworth (Facilities), Asenka Miller & __ (Geoduck Union Reps), Rob Workman (Assistive Technologies and Techniques/Student), Janis Moore (Student), Luke Bowerman (Web Team), and Zack Coles (Student)
1. CAB Remodel
o Dick Clintworth (project manager) spoke.
Currently working on State funding.
Programming starts in July (if funded)
Construction starts in July 2008
Completion early 2010 (February)
Shared pre-design manual with group (will be posted online)
Will be a LEED Gold project
Goal is to make the building up-to-date technologically
New data closets (stacked vertically)
More ports (CAT6)
Audio system will be available in performance area
Concern was expressed about overlap of Library A-wing and CAB overlap
Design committee will be established in July to provide input on design and process of CAB remodel. Representatives from the IT community will be asked to be involved.
Support was expressed for making sure students are very involved in the planning process.
2. Student Technology Fee
A student, Rob Workman, spoke to his experience at Everett Community College where they instituted a $3 per credit fee that was used to offer faster replacement and two new labs. Advertising the fee with the right message allowed for overwhelming success in the student vote in support of the fee.
The student government has setup a Technology Committee
3. Welcome to new Academic Computing Manager (Rip Heminway)
4. ITCH Technology Research Budget
Aaron Powell described the background behind the existence of the funding. The budget was provided to the ITCH to accomplish “something” perhaps typically for projects with campus-wide impacts.
Currently used for procurement of a content management system and staffing for that.
Susan Bustetter gave a brief overview of the CMS project. The RFP process is complete and Hannon Hill Cascade Server was selected. The pilot will be completed by mid-April.
A question was asked how Drupal and the CMS overlap. Luke Bowerman.
Peter Randlette discussed the process for selecting which project would be funded next.
Susan shared the estimate for what the CMS implementation would require. She shared a document that covered that (document will be posted online). Amy Greene expressed her understanding that the money was not for specific projects but for any use. The group agreed.
Lee Lytle asked what the opportunity cost of the CMS implementation is, what other projects are on the list to attempt? He asked whether it should be the College’s responsibility for picking up projects and running them into implementation.
Thad Curtz asked why the ongoing costs were not dealt with in the biennium budget process.
Aaron Powell responded that communication between the ITCH and senior staff probably needs better definition.
The group discussed that the project took longer than was originally expected due to process of hiring and RFP processes.
Peter Randlette described the choices to make at this time.
Whether or not to recommend today to fully or partially fund the CMS implementation.
To choose to not make a recommendation today and to instead go and prioritize the list and decide what project is the first position for funding.
Lin Crowley asked what else was on the priorities list?
Dave and Rip both spoke to the need to spending 6 months of funding to allow 6 months to repriortize the list and allow the CMS to move forward.
The group decided to recommend that the CMS Implementation be funded for an additional 6 month.
5. Information Environment Review
There were questions about what the “Draft” status. Rob Rensel said that there was room for a few small questions from the college to be addressed in response to the draft.
The group was encouraged to send any comments and questions to Aaron and online on the Core ITCH’s Drupal site.
It was mentioned that accessibility services and media services were not really discussed within the review.
Dave Metzler mentioned that he thought it would be good to pursue some of the top recommendations spelled out in the review.
Peter brought up the idea of a response to the review.
6. Archiving Campus Web Content (Issac presented)
Overview document to be published online.
Program web pages have generally been static pages managed by Dreamweaver. Copying sites made in this fashion was very easy.
New web-based applications make archiving sites in their entirety much more difficult.
Amy Betz mentioned her vision for Faculty eventually having portals for one place to provide a central place for them to go.
Dave brought up the question of who would archive what and be responsible for that data. He also managed the questions of rights-management.
Protecting confidentiality of content students have created online is also a problem.
Dave mentioned that the State has recently changed its archival policy.
7. Library Technology Group (Lee Lytle presented)
The Library and Media Services has lots of technology and tech staff. They are trying to put together to a group to make decisions based on the goals of the ITCH and the Strategic Plan. Try to implement priorities that fit the IT Strategic Plan and the Library and Media Services goals.
Working on making better connections across groups and to help communication between different groups.
The group discussed working on more collaboration between the Library, Media Services and Academic Computing.
8. Mac Support Issues
Thad Curtz had earlier sent a list of issues he had with the support of Mac OS X (available of Academic ITCH site)
The group felt that work needs to be done on better collecting what problems people are having.
Lee mentioned the idea of having an always-available service desk that is campus-wide and allows more universal access the campus community.
The group agreed to re-visit this issue in the near future.
o Dick Clintworth (project manager) spoke.
Currently working on State funding.
Programming starts in July (if funded)
Construction starts in July 2008
Completion early 2010 (February)
Shared pre-design manual with group (will be posted online)
Will be a LEED Gold project
Goal is to make the building up-to-date technologically
New data closets (stacked vertically)
More ports (CAT6)
Audio system will be available in performance area
Concern was expressed about overlap of Library A-wing and CAB overlap
Design committee will be established in July to provide input on design and process of CAB remodel. Representatives from the IT community will be asked to be involved.
Support was expressed for making sure students are very involved in the planning process.
2. Student Technology Fee
A student, Rob Workman, spoke to his experience at Everett Community College where they instituted a $3 per credit fee that was used to offer faster replacement and two new labs. Advertising the fee with the right message allowed for overwhelming success in the student vote in support of the fee.
The student government has setup a Technology Committee
3. Welcome to new Academic Computing Manager (Rip Heminway)
4. ITCH Technology Research Budget
Aaron Powell described the background behind the existence of the funding. The budget was provided to the ITCH to accomplish “something” perhaps typically for projects with campus-wide impacts.
Currently used for procurement of a content management system and staffing for that.
Susan Bustetter gave a brief overview of the CMS project. The RFP process is complete and Hannon Hill Cascade Server was selected. The pilot will be completed by mid-April.
A question was asked how Drupal and the CMS overlap. Luke Bowerman.
Peter Randlette discussed the process for selecting which project would be funded next.
Susan shared the estimate for what the CMS implementation would require. She shared a document that covered that (document will be posted online). Amy Greene expressed her understanding that the money was not for specific projects but for any use. The group agreed.
Lee Lytle asked what the opportunity cost of the CMS implementation is, what other projects are on the list to attempt? He asked whether it should be the College’s responsibility for picking up projects and running them into implementation.
Thad Curtz asked why the ongoing costs were not dealt with in the biennium budget process.
Aaron Powell responded that communication between the ITCH and senior staff probably needs better definition.
The group discussed that the project took longer than was originally expected due to process of hiring and RFP processes.
Peter Randlette described the choices to make at this time.
Whether or not to recommend today to fully or partially fund the CMS implementation.
To choose to not make a recommendation today and to instead go and prioritize the list and decide what project is the first position for funding.
Lin Crowley asked what else was on the priorities list?
Dave and Rip both spoke to the need to spending 6 months of funding to allow 6 months to repriortize the list and allow the CMS to move forward.
The group decided to recommend that the CMS Implementation be funded for an additional 6 month.
5. Information Environment Review
There were questions about what the “Draft” status. Rob Rensel said that there was room for a few small questions from the college to be addressed in response to the draft.
The group was encouraged to send any comments and questions to Aaron and online on the Core ITCH’s Drupal site.
It was mentioned that accessibility services and media services were not really discussed within the review.
Dave Metzler mentioned that he thought it would be good to pursue some of the top recommendations spelled out in the review.
Peter brought up the idea of a response to the review.
6. Archiving Campus Web Content (Issac presented)
Overview document to be published online.
Program web pages have generally been static pages managed by Dreamweaver. Copying sites made in this fashion was very easy.
New web-based applications make archiving sites in their entirety much more difficult.
Amy Betz mentioned her vision for Faculty eventually having portals for one place to provide a central place for them to go.
Dave brought up the question of who would archive what and be responsible for that data. He also managed the questions of rights-management.
Protecting confidentiality of content students have created online is also a problem.
Dave mentioned that the State has recently changed its archival policy.
7. Library Technology Group (Lee Lytle presented)
The Library and Media Services has lots of technology and tech staff. They are trying to put together to a group to make decisions based on the goals of the ITCH and the Strategic Plan. Try to implement priorities that fit the IT Strategic Plan and the Library and Media Services goals.
Working on making better connections across groups and to help communication between different groups.
The group discussed working on more collaboration between the Library, Media Services and Academic Computing.
8. Mac Support Issues
Thad Curtz had earlier sent a list of issues he had with the support of Mac OS X (available of Academic ITCH site)
The group felt that work needs to be done on better collecting what problems people are having.
Lee mentioned the idea of having an always-available service desk that is campus-wide and allows more universal access the campus community.
The group agreed to re-visit this issue in the near future.