University of Minnesota

Institute of Technology

 

Minutes of the ITICC Meeting,

April 17, 2003

3:35 p.m., Physics 133

 

Present: Bill Arnold (CE), John Baxter (Math), Kit Bingham (Stat), Evan Bollig (ITSB), Tom Chase (ME), Peter Davis (Geol), Tracy DeLaney (Astro), John Hall (Math), Peter Hudleston (IT Stud Aff), Phil Kachelmyer (ADCS), Jerry Larson (ADCS), Larry LeMay (ADCS),  Jim MacDonald (ITLabs & CSciE), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Krishnan Mahesh (AEM), Mark Nicosia (BME), Roger Rusack (Physics), Karen Swanberg (Geol), Lucas Veverka (ITSB)

 

 

1)                  Status Reports from CSciE and ADCS

 

MacDonald reported that the labs in EE/CS had to be closed in the late afternoon of Monday 4/14 (when the temperature outside hit 87o), because the A/C cooling units on the roof cannot be turned on while the roof is being resealed.  This may happen again if the temperature gets too high before the roof work is finished.  Other IT labs in ME 308 and CE 230 are not affected.

 

Hudleston and MacDonald explained where things stood with the proposed fix to the ventilation and air conditioning problem in CE 230, which is a project ITICC has approved in principle for the current (2002-03) academic year. The original estimate for addressing the problem involved putting in pipes for a new liquid-cooled air conditioning system sited on the roof and improving air flow in the room. The cost (well in excess of $200,000) greatly exceeded the amount budgeted.  Hudleston said he would not ask ITICC to approve such a plan, especially because the cost is a significant fraction of the cost to completely replace the cooling system in the CE building, installing a new process chiller for chilled water instead of using groundwater, a project that is on the list of capital improvements for the campus. For ITICC to pay so much for a temporary fix to the problem makes no economical sense.

 

Facilities management and the contractor have been asked to provide an estimate for increasing air flow in the room, using the existing building cooling and ventilation system.  It involves putting in a 20” pipe and extending branch pipes to distribute air throughout the room.  We are awaiting this estimate.  There are several instructional programs that use CE 230 in the summer.  There is no reason why these groups can’t use the new classroom/labs in EE/CS, which will not be in use as classrooms in the summer.   MacDonald said that the machines in Lind 24 could also be booted up in Windows and used for the same purpose. 

 

 

2)                  Final Discussion of ITIC Tech Committee Recommendations  for Lab Improvements for 2003-04

 

Before the discussion, Hudleston noted two things in regard to the budget for next year.  The first, as mentioned at a previous meeting, as part of budget trimming in the college, there will be a reduction of $100,000 in the contribution to ITICC from IT Instructional Equipment funds from the IT dean’s office.  This will, however, to a significant extent be offset by the dean’s office picking up the network connection charges for the labs (in excess of $60,000 per year). Second, Hudleston said he is proposing a small increase in the computer fee for next year.  The fee has not been increased since before the change to semesters, and costs have been increasing. The proposal is to raise the fee from $165 to $170 per semester.

 

MacDonald distributed the final listing of recommendations for lab improvements for FY 04. A few items have been added since the list was first brought to ITICC for discussion (see March 20 minutes).  New items include memory upgrade kits for three of the servers, and two new wireless access points for the commons area in EE/CS.  The total cost of the improvements proposed for 2003-04 is now $241,904.

 

The question had been raised at the previous ITICC meeting about the appropriate source of funding for replacing the computers in Lind 24.  These had been purchased originally using lower division funds under a proposal submitted by the Math department when this lab/classroom was set up.  The facility is now used both as a classroom by Math two days a week and as a general purpose Linux lab for the other three days.  Hudleston proposed a 50:50 spilt between lower division and upper division funding of the replacement computers.  MacEwan reminded the committee that in the last round of lower division proposals, the subcommittee making the proposal had recommend and ITICC had approved that funds be put aside for purchase of replacement computers for Lind 24.  The amount of funding involved was $50,000, which meshes neatly with the proposal to split the cost 50:50 between lower and upper divisions.  Hudleston said he would indicate this split in the e-mail ballot he will now send to ITICC voting members.

 

4)         Other Business

 

Two items emerged from the discussion of proposed lab improvements for 2003-04.  The first concerned the use of Lind 24.  It was noted that the use of the lab during the “off” days, when not used as a classroom, is very low.  Apparently, few IT students are using Linux in their coursework or general computing.   MacDonald said it would be easy to convert the lab to Windows in the days it is not being used for Math classes.  It was agreed that this is something we will experiment with next year.

 

There was an extended discussion about the growing use of wireless connections in IT and about who should be responsible for installing access points.   Many departments have installed these in their buildings, and ADCS has also installed them in various places on campus.  ITICC has installed access points in EE/CS (in commons areas used by students), in addition to the extra ones proposed for next year.  Swanberg asked if it would have been acceptable to request ITICC funding for placing access points in her department (Pillsbury Hall).  This is something that has just been done at department expense.  She would have requested ITICC funds if this had been an option.   Hudleston said he thought in principle if there are commons areas in IT buildings used by good numbers of IT undergraduates, it would be reasonable to request ITICC funds for the purpose of installing access points.  However, the issue may be now moot since much of the space used by students is set up for wireless connections.  Hudleston asked Rusack, Chase, Swanberg, MacDonald and Bollig and/or Veverka to address the issue and report back to ITICC as to whether or not there is an unmet need for wireless connections in IT buildings and, if so, whether ITICC should play a role in meeting that need.

 

Hudleston reminded the committee there is one more regular meeting of ITICC this semester. The main topic will be discussion of management proposals.