University of Minnesota

Institute of Technology

Minutes of ITICC Meeting

September 13, 2001

3:30 p.m., 170 Physics

Present: Graham Allen (Phys), Gary Balas (Aero), Randal Barnes (CivE), Victor Barocas (BioMedE), John Baxter (Math), Bryan Carlson (ADCS), Tracey DeLaney (Astro), Eric Ganz (Phys), John Hall (Math), Peter Hudleston (IT Stud Aff), Phil Kachelmyer (ADCS), Nicholas Kim (BioMedE), Satish Kumar (CEMS), Larry LeMay (ADCS), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Kent Mann (Chem), Kent Mein (CSE&ITLabs), Robin Panda (ECE), Shashi Shekhar (CSciE), Karen Swanberg (Geol)

1) Introductions

Committee members introduced themselves. For the benefit of new members, Hudleston then briefly described the make-up of the committee and the tasks it handles.

2) Status reports from CSci and ADCS and Hudleston

LeMay reported that he has been having a problem with getting enough consultants into the labs. He had learned just as the semester started that 10 of his consultants could not be employed unless they registered for more credits - they were below the minimum. Most labs have been operating on reduced hours and all without double coverage, so far with few or no complaints. Only ME 308 has been open basically following the full schedule.

Mein said that all the new Sun workstations, approved by ITICC last spring, had been installed over the summer. In addition, the new computers approved for CE 230 have been replaced with Win2K machines, plus 9 extra ones. Carlson reported that the new machines are about set to go.

Hudleston informed the committee that all the proposals brought before ITICC for a vote in the spring had been approved. These include the two management proposals (with ADCS and CSci), a two-part proposal for improvement of the central IT facilities (supported by the Upper Division/Graduate student fee), and a three-year proposal for supporting instructional computing in Lower Division (supported by the Lower Division fee.)

3) Plans for 2001-2002

Hudleston reported that improvements to the public labs approved last spring for FY 02 totaled about $300,000 [note added: this is incorrect, the actual amount of the two proposals approved is about $500,000.] He added that the committee should consider a second proposal this fall, with about $300,000 [correct figure] in FY 02 funds remaining for this purpose. The IT Technical Committee will bring a proposal to ITICC for consideration at the next ITICC meeting in October. Anyone with suggestions should get them to Jim MacDonald or any other ITTechCommittee member, or to him (Hudleston), who would forward them to the Tech Committee.

As a heads-up for later in the year, Hudleston reported that were two maintenance/improvement infrastructure projects that ITICC would need to consider. One is air-conditioning in CE 230, which LeMay has been told by Facilities Management is not functioning properly. The whole unit needs replacement (a 15 year old building, apparently, having equipment installed that is too old to get replacement parts for), or some other way needs to be found for linking the room fully to the building central air conditioning.

The second project follows from the upcoming acquisition of Lind 26 (currently an ADCS facility) by IT for a computer classroom/lab. This will occur after the large new ADCS lab opens in Walter Library. Lind 26 will require remodeling (including better air conditioning) before being used by IT. This work will be done in FY 03, but planning will need to be started before then.

4) Other Business

Baxter inquired if there had been any development on the topic of possibly instituting a university laptop requirement. Hudleston explained the history of the idea, and said that currently it was up to colleges to decide their own computer policy, and as far as he knew there was no plan to move to a university wide laptop requirement. In connection with laptops, he reminded the committee that there are several wireless initiatives going on around campus, and these are tied to laptops in one way or another. CLA and ADCS have equipped several classrooms with wireless access hubs, and Chemistry uses laptops linked to wireless hubs in the introductory chem labs (see ITICC minutes of 10/19/00). Funds were approved last year by ITICC to install a few wireless access points in the EE/CS building. One of these so far has been installed. [In the survey of IT students last year, 90% of respondents reported owning their own computer, and about 20% reported owning lap tops.]

Baxter also asked if there had been any move to rationalize the scheme for charging technology fees. Hudleston said no: each college sets its own fee and applies slightly different rules as to who must pay it. He said he had argued unsuccessfully in the past for a common lower division fee, paid by all undergraduates, with the revenue shared among colleges according to credit load, in the way that tuition revenue is shared. As it is, the colleges use their fee revenue in very different ways, with IT putting nearly all its money into basic facilities: hardware, software, maintenance and management. Other colleges put much of their funds into integration of technology into courses.

Mann wondered whether there was any point in approaching CLA to find support for instructional computing in lower division. He said he had recently received a solicitation for proposals from CLA, but also noted that Chemistry has tried twice, unsuccessfully, to get support from CLA for providing computer equipment to support courses in which CLA students make up a high proportion of the class. Hudleston noted that, on the other hand, Geology has successfully requested funds from CLA.

Balas asked Kachelmyer if there had been any progress in attempts to get a lower pricing from MathWorks to allow the use of node-locked Matlab licenses, so the software can be installed directly onto a laptop computer, for purposes of presentations, etc. The issue has been whether we can get a reduced rate for such a license, as a supplement to our current Matlab license, or whether - as MathWorks has so far insisted - we start from scratch, which would be much more expensive. Kachelmyer said that no progress has been made, but that they are still trying.

Swanberg said she was about to upgrade Windows software in her department and wondered if there was a new software agreement with Microsoft she should know about and could take advantage of. Hudleston said that MacDonald is working on an arrangement (under the MSDN Academic Alliance Program.) that IT departments should be able to take advantage of, but he (Hudleston) was not sure of the details. Mein said details should be finalized soon. There is an existing software arrangement with Microsoft that Kachelmyer was instrumental in setting up last year that allows departments/units to buy into – paying according to the number of FTE employees in the unit - in which software can be installed on any number of machines (interested parties should see Kachelmyer.) The IT Dean’s Office – which includes the IT Public Labs – is participating in this agreement.

Swanberg also inquired whether there was a listserv for Computer Lab Managers through which information of common interest could be shared. No one knew of such a service, but there was agreement that this was a good idea. Kachelmyer said he would look into it and set one up.