Institute of Technology
Minutes of the ITICC Meeting,
January 27, 2005
3:35 p.m., Physics 133
Present: Mark Anderson (Chem), Bill Arnold (CE), Bryan Carlson (ADCS), Tom Chase (ME), Peter Hudleston (IT Dean’s Office), Michelle Jacobs (CEMS), Phil Kachelmyer (ADCS), Kent Kirkby (Geol), Satish Kumar (CEMS), Larry LeMay (ADCS), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Kent Mein (CSE, IT Labs), Sean O’Neill (Astro), Jonathan Rogness (Math), Farzad Sadjadi (Phys), Tom Shield (Aero), Dale Swanson (ECE)
1) Results of the Fall 2004 Balloting
Hudleston informed the committee that all the proposals voted on late last fall by electronic balloting had been approved. The fall round of improvements to the public labs, on the Upper Division ballot, were given ‘yes’ votes by all respondents. All but two of the respondents voted ‘yes’ for the maintenance supplement for Chemistry on the Lower Division ballot, and all but one of the respondents voted ‘yes’ for the modifications to the Lower Division guidelines.
Hudleston reviewed the upper division budget after the fall improvements had been taken into account and noted that the account shows a small positive balance. He expressed his concern that the carry forward balance should not continue to grow. The budget sheet is attached to the minutes.
2) Status reports from CSciE and ADCS
Installation of new equipment over the winter break went smoothly. A few things remain to be done, including installing the new overhead projector in ME 302. LeMay reported that there continue to be problems with the new fiber optic security system – the cables are somewhat exposed and vulnerable to being kicked by lab users. The university police have consequently been responding to false alarms (around twice a week) and are threatening to charge the labs for these. LeMay said things are better as adjustments have been made.
Rogness
reported a problem in Lind 24: at one of the first class meetings of the
semester a Math teaching assistant had called in a problem in the morning, and
it was not until late in the day that there had been a response, long after the
class had ended. There was discussion
about how best to contact lab operators in a situation like this, by phone or
by email, or both. It was agreed that high priority must be given to problems
in computer lab/classrooms when classes are being held. Are lab operators aware when and where the
classes are being held and alert to the possibility that they may be required
to provide rapid assistance? Mein pointed out that the 12 lab operators had
about 150 open tickets to deal with, so there are issues of workload and
response time.
3) Preliminary Discussion for Lab Improvements for 2005-06
Hudleston outlined the issues that need to be addressed by ITICC during the spring semester. These include the regular spring round of annual improvements to the public labs (under Upper Division computing) and, starting this year, considering proposals for new initiatives under Lower Division computing. He noted that for the most part public lab improvements consist of making replacements of equipment on a planned 4-year cycle. He added that there are no expected changes in the number of labs or the number of seats in the labs in the near future. It seems that there has been a general trend towards reduced use of the Unix workstations and increased use of the Windows machines over time, and we need to keep track of these changes and their implications for the replacement of hardware and software. He asked the committee members to share any ideas they might have for improvements, either in an open ITICC meeting or by sending suggestions to the IT Instructional Computing Technical Committee.
A suggestion was made that we might consider making spaces available in the labs for students to work with their laptops. Although this in general would be useful, and the presence of wireless hubs would facilitate it, LeMay and Carlson said that it would be difficult given the limited space available. There is barely sufficient space now for one seat per station and additional space could only be created by reducing the number of desktop machines. Hudleston noted that there would also probably be licensing issues if students were to use their own computers in the labs.
4) Other Business
None
****************
Attachment: Budget
for the Public labs for 2004-05 (see www.itlabs.umn.edu/iticc/budget.php)