University of Minnesota

Institute of Technology

Minutes of ITICC Meeting

March 15, 2001

3:40 p.m., 435 Physics

John Baxter (Math), Tom Chase (ME), Tracey DeLaney (Astro), Tina Garrett (Math), Michael Greminger (ME), Andrew Hamann (ITSB), John Hickey (CSciE), Peter Hudleston (IT Stud Aff), Satish Kumar (CEMS), Chun-Tao Li (ECE), Jim MacDonald (CSE&ITLabs), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Kent Mann (Chem), Roger Rusack (Phys), Karen Swanberg (Geol)

1) Status reports from CSci and ADCS

MacDonald reported that the 5 extra workstations are now installed in ME 302. He also said that he expected a replacement for Dan Bance to be announced soon [Note added later: Bryan Carlson has accepted this positiuon as of 4/2/01.] Otherwise, no reports of problems from management or students.

2) Report of ad Hoc Committee on Lower Division Computing

(The report of the committee had been sent to ITICC members by e-mail on Feb. 27.) Hudleston described the history and purpose of “Lower Division” computing, and how it came to be handled differently from the pre-existing “Upper Division” computing. The 25% of lower division fee income put towards maintaining the central IT labs was based on an estimate of how much of the “upper division” fee had been paid by lower division students before the “lower division” fee came into effect. The principle was that there should not be a reduction in income supporting the central labs when the lower division fee was initiated. The estimate of lower division fee for 2001-02 is $550,000 of which 25% will go to support the central labs. The upper division fee is estimated to be $1,350,000. In addition, there is $500,000 in instructional equipment matching funds put in by the college.

Hudleston said he liked the recommendation of the ad hoc committee that the basic procedures for funding lower division computing be kept, and also the additional element of reserving $50,000 each year for annual proposals. After brief discussion, a vote was taken on the recommendations of the ad hoc committee. The vote to approve them was unanimous. Hudleston reminded the committee that proposals for the first phase of lower division computing were due on March 28. He also said he hoped to have the initial recommendations of the tech committee for the 2000-2001 proposal at that time.

Mann inquired about the proportion of the “upper divisions” funds allocated to departments. When could departments expect to hear how much they would be allocated? Hudleston said he had the data on enrollment now to do that calculation.

Rusack mentioned that there was often a problem with software, with non-IT students taking the physics courses,. Students, for example, need to use Mathematica or Matlab for some of the exercises, and this may not be available in non-IT labs on campus. Rusack asked it could be arranged to make such software available in non-IT labs.

3) Computer Lab in Coffman Union

Hudleston said he had been approached by those planning the remodeling of Coffman Union about getting possible support from IT for a computer lab in the union. He distributed a handout that outlined the plans for a 2,500 s.f. lab (50-60 stations), with associated costs. IT and CLA are being asked if they would consider putting some funds from their technology fee to this lab, based on the notion that a good fraction of the users would be CLA and IT students. Hudleston had told the planners that he would have to bring such a request to ITICC, and that he would explore under what conditions IT might support such a facility. He said what he liked about the plans were that this would be a 24-hour facility in a building that would be open with other amenities 24 hours. This would provide security (and parking?) that many who work late are concerned about.

There was general agreement that the lab in CMU was a good idea, but it was not clear what the added benefit to IT students might be unless some machines in the lab were reserved for IT student use. This would be most easily done if these machines were workstations, which are not currently (directly) accessible on a 24 hour basis. Hudleston said that this is the kind of arrangement he could support, but he wasn’t sure how the Coffman Union management would view it. It would be easiest from IT’s perspective if a group of machines in the lab were treated like any other IT machines, with management and support provide by IT Lab management. Another possibility, that might be harder to handle, would be to have the IT software accessed through any NT machine in the lab.

Hudleston said he would continue discussion with the CMU planners and may return to ITICC with a proposal.

2) Other Business

None.