University of Minnesota

Institute of Technology

Minutes of the ITICC Meeting,

February 19, 2004

3:35 p.m., 133 Physics

Present: William Arnold (CE), Bryan Carlson (ADCS), Tom Chase (ME), Tracy DeLaney (Astro), Peter Hudleston (IT Dean’s Office), Phil Kachelmyer (ADCS), Kent Kirkby (Geol), Larry LeMay (ADCS), James Maatman (ITSB), Kent Mann (Chem), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Roger Rusack (Phys), Hitoshi Sakamoto (ME),

Karen Swanberg (Geol), Lucas Veverka (ITSB),

1) Status reports from CSciE and ADCS

LeMay reported that there had been an accidental hiatus in keeping usage statistics in ME 308. When 40 new machines were installed over winter break, they were not setup to automatically record usage. This has now been corrected. He also reported that there had been a problem with air conditioning in the server room, which had overheated. This had caused the servers to be shut down for a period. This was not at a time that should have caused any problems for users.

Maatman inquired if there was any reason why he should not be able to use CVS software (Concurrent Versions System) in the IT labs. He thought it would be useful in his computer science projects. He had tried to access it, but was unable to. Carlson thought this was probably being blocked automatically by the university. He said he would look into it.

Hudleston informed the committee that he had approved the acquisition of 10 more ANSYS licenses (up from the current 25) using contingency funds, at the request of Chase. It appears that there is increased use of this software package in ME classes.

2) Lower Division Funding

Rusack handed out the most recent draft of the proposed modifications to the “General Guidelines for the Distribution of Funds for IT Courses,” that applies to the distribution of Lower Division ITICC funds. This is the second part of the document “Procedures for the Management of the Lower Division Computer Fee”, which can be found at: http://www.itlabs.umn.edu/iticc/op-procd-draft.html.

The subcommittee chaired by Rusack (with other members Tom Chase, Kent Mann, Hitoshi Sakamoto and Matt Dushek) is not recommending any changes to the first part of the current guidelines, and is proposing limited modifications to the second part. It recommends continuing funding in three-year cycles. The biggest difference is the expansion of the first item and its splitting into two, recognizing that ITICC has responsibility for maintaining the computer facilities established and supported by ITICC lower Division funds over the past six years, as well as a responsibility for encouraging new initiatives by departments. Proposals prepared under the ‘maintenance’ category will continue to be developed through a collaborative process that results in a joint proposal from the interested departments being brought to ITICC for approval. Proposals prepared under the ‘new initiative’ category will be brought by departments individually to ITICC for approval.

Given the limited attendance at the meeting, Hudleston said he would solicit comments from the committee and encourage the subcommittee to revise its recommendations, if necessary. Because of timing, he said he would likely seek approval by e-mail vote of the revised guidelines before the next meeting. He said he would also inform committee members by email the of the time schedule for considering lower division proposals this spring.

3) Other Business

There was some discussion of how technology fees are collected and distributed in the various colleges, and the issue of fairness this raises for providing computational facilities in courses, such as those in the physical sciences, in which a significant fraction of the students comes from other colleges. Because the computers used in chemistry and physics are paid for only by IT students, our students are in effect subsidizing students from other colleges who take these courses. Hudleston said he had in the past proposed that the computer fee be collected centrally and then distributed by formula, much like tuition. In this case the fee would follow the students into the courses they take. The trouble with this is that the fee currently is very different in different colleges (from $80 per semester in CLA to $300 per semester in the Carlson School), and established patterns have been set that make tinkering with the system an unattractive proposition. He said the justification for the present arrangement is that there is some reciprocity in the system. CLA students benefit from the fee paid by IT students when they take courses in IT, and IT students benefit from the fee paid by CLA students when they take courses in CLA. The way that the fee is used in the two colleges is however different. IT puts its resources almost entirely into hardware and software, CLA puts some of its resources into developing technology enhanced learning in courses and other things.