Information Technology Planning Board
Meeting Summary
Friday, June 13, 2008

ITPB Attendees:  Kathryn Atchison, Christine Borgman, Alfonso Cardenas, Jim Davis, Michael Goldstein, Bill Jepson, David Kaplan, Kathleen Komar, Sam Morabito, Warren Mori, Sean Pine (for Michael Schill), Marilyn Raphael, Alan Robinson, Andrew Royer, David Snow, Gary Strong

Guests:  Ross Bollens, Carmela Cunningham, Larry Loeher, Nick Reddingius, Margo Reveil, Terry Ryan, Kent Wada.

Agenda Item 1:  Approval of Summary

The April 29, 2008 meeting summary was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 2:  Five-minute summaries of conclusions and recommendations from each working group

CCLE/Intellectual Property Recommendations

Terry Ryan presented a summary of the CCLE/Intellectual Property working group. 

Recommendations:

1. The CCLE Intellectual Property Advisor/Assistant work with Campus Counsel and the Office of Intellectual Property to address priority tasks to educate faculty and students about their own copyrights and the resources available to them.
2. Assessment of the CCLE Standards and Practices Group via annual reports given from the CCLE S&PG and the CCLE Coordinator to the ITPB, GCET, and the Dean’s Council
3. Solidifying the relationship between the CCLE to the ITPB (i.e. CCLE attendance to ITPB meetings when necessary, current FCET chair considered as a possible ITPB member.
4. Determine whether information technology capabilities in classrooms affect the implementation and adoption of the CCLE.
5. Lay the groundwork for the CCLE to be a platform for a record of instruction at UCLA that could be made more widely available if desired.

Discussion:

The working group recommends that the first four recommendations in the summary report of June 11, 2008 be adopted for the next year.  These recommendations require no additional funding as resources are already provided for the CCLE.  These items would complement the classroom initiatives already being undertaken.  The fifth recommendation would require additional resources, and there is a concern whether the staff and resources are available. The working group considers this recommendation a lower priority. 

The co-chairs recommended that the workgroup be disbanded and track progress through regular reports from the CCLE Coordinator and the Chair of the CCLE S & PG.  The working group chair stated that the ITPB might consider appointing a new ITPB working group after the 2008/09 annual report for the next phase of the CCLE.

Security Working Group

Jim Davis presented the Security Working Group summary recommendations: 

1.  A campus-wide policy detailing standards that apply to all staff and faculty will need to be developed.
2. UCLA Policy 420 already assigns the financial responsibility for a breach or loss of Personally Identifiable Information/Protected Health Information to the Vice Chancellor/Dean of organizational unit in which the breach occurs.  It will  be worthwhile to pursue an insurance model as a future addition to the policy.
3. Establish a documented protocol regarding the individuals’ need to protect Personally Identifiable Information/Protected Health Information data. 
4. Units should strengthen the policy locally as appropriate.
5. The development and implementation of a protocol should be done with key faculty, staff and support units and committees so that there will be an accepted agreement.
6. A future offline discussion regarding export control was recommended. 
7. The working group should be disbanded. With the policy directions and approached framed the IT security personnel and the IT Compliance Coordinators (ITCC) should further develop this work. 

Computational Cyberinfrastructure

Warren Mori presented the report for the Computational Cyberinfrastructure working group.  The group concluded that there is a campus need for computational infrastructure and that there is great added value to be gained by pooling resources for the faculty. 

The working group recommendations are:

1. Continue to pursue the shared cluster model and explore business models.
2. Continue to be proactive and be lead participants in the UC Cyberinfrastructure pilot, the UC Regional data center model and the UC grid portal model development.
3. Begin to investigate cloud computing.
4. Include the IDRE Director as a member of the ITPB.

A justification of a CI pilot was included with the handouts.  A shared cluster will support researchers while decreasing the costs of storage and energy.  An aggregation of data centers will also save on facilities costs.  Many issues regarding how to share resources will have to be addressed, as there are significant differences between North and South campus requirements and funding models.  It is recommended that this working group continue.

 

 

Discussion:

• It was questioned whether IDRE could absorb some of the many computing facilities around campus but also explained that IDRE is coordinating muliple data center options to accommodate researcher needs.
• IDRE’s main priority is providing shared facilities and the associated  data center space for those who want to push the envelope with their research.
• IDRE’s role will grow because humanities researchers have expressed the need to do something in some of the largest computer facilities.
• The library may be able to help regarding a shared data depository.
• The campus needs to aggregate resources around the right research groups and to address the issue of aggregation vs. distribution.
• The new IDRE director should participate in ITPB meetings and working groups as needed. Currently Warren Mori serves both as ITPB member and IDRE director.

Research & Educational Data Management Working Group

Christine Borgman reported on the recommendations of the Research and Educational Data Management workgroup.  The relationship between research and data management is evident, and granting agencies such as NSF and NIH are increasingly indicating the need for proposals to include data management plans.  There needs to be assistance for researchers and educators to create data management plans. 

The Research and Educational Data Management Subcommittees’ defined the scope of the data management problem as:

• Providing assistance for researchers to create data management plans.
• Responding to the funding agency policies on data curation and access as an institution.
• Establishing policy and standards for curation of research and educational data.
• Determining “who owns the problem.”

 

Key Priorities are:

• Ability to select what data is important to preserve.
• Taking a proactive approach for the UC campuses to evaluate best practices for data management through surveys and environmental scans of current behaviors, practices, and support needs
• Identifying privacy issues—what records or course products should be made openly available?
• Developing faculty tutorials around best practices to give faculty support—need to research source of support?
• Identifying current practices across campus to arise at improved and more efficient and effective practices

Recommendations:

1. Assign staffing resources to:

• Do a best practices survey
• Do an environmental scan

2. Determine campus responsibilities regarding:

• Education and referral on data management throughout the data lifecycle
• Curation and preservation of data resources

3. Assess how much UCLA wants to be on the bleeding edge

 

It was recommended that the working group continue for another year to pursue these recommendations – provided that staff support is made available to support the action items.

Wireless Working Group

Jim Davis gave an overview of the Wireless working group’s recommendations with the objective to respond to student needs to the extent possible in the short run:

1.  Proceed with assessment/implementation of the general open and other areas on the student list.
2. Support the recommendations for wireless in general assignment classrooms made by the Faculty Committee on Educational Technology (FCET)
3. Proceed with a preliminary assessment of costs to deploy wireless in CHS, a large facility with a large number of requests to acquire wireless.
4.  Review the School of Medicine wireless initiative as a potential TIER initiative.
5. Seek the input of the CCLE, Data Management, and Research CI workgroups on a functional vision of wireless.
6. Organize focus groups in specific areas to develop a campus perspective on emerging wireless supported directions.
7. The Next Generation Network Team should evaluate wireless technologies to provide recommended strategies to best meet campus requirements and expectations.

 

Discussion:

• The issue of wireless as a classroom distraction or as an instructional necessity still remains as various faculty members state that they don’t want wireless in the classroom.
• The FCET considers wireless coverage in the large general assignments classroom a low priority and that wireless should be reserved for classes in smaller settings rather than larger settings.  However, it is important to recognize and separate issues of wireless in the classroom and the upgrade of technological instruction.
• The difficulties of installing wireless as well as having the ability to block wireless is a losing battle
• There is the need to understand wireless goals from a functional standpoint.

 

A final recommendation was to disband the ITPB Wireless Workgroup and coordinate planning through the ITPB, the Next Generation Network team, Common Systems Group, and the TIER Functional Oversight Committee.

 

 

Agenda Item 3:  Discussion to arrive at overall ITPB conclusions and recommendations, prioritization, and decision on what working groups should be continued and/or adjusted to go forward.

Alfonso Cardenas asked for the group to vote on each of the subcommittees’ recommendations separately:

• Wireless subgroup: - The group voted unanimously to accept the wireless subgroup’s recommendations. Alfonso Cardenas said that the July meeting will become the time to conduct a prioritization discussion. 

• CCLE /Intellectual Property: Gary Strong moved that the ITPB support recommendations 1-4 as stated and made another motion that recommendation #5 be set aside for discussion next year.  The motion passed.  The CCLE working group is now officially disbanded and discharged from their duties.
• Security Working Group:  A motion was made to accept the recommendations of the Security Working Group and to hand over their duties to the IT Policy and Security Directors and to the IT Compliance Coordinators (ITCC).  The motion passed. 
• Computational Cyberinfrastructure: It was moved that the recommendations be passed and that the IDRE Director who is also a member of the ITPB participate in ITPB meetings and working groups as needed
• Research and Education Data Management:  A motion was made to approve the recommendations of the workgroup and the motion passed. 

It was suggested that the chairs of the working groups meet before the next ITPB meeting on July 16, 2008.
Agenda Item 4:  Call for recommendations for new ITPB members to replace members leaving the board at the end of August.

Alfonso Cardenas will finish his three-year term as chair of the ITPB at the end of August.  Traditionally the vice chair becomes the chair upon his retirement, although this is done in consultation with the EVC and the Academic Senate. 

Alfonso Cardenas asked ITPB members to keep in mind possible members to replace those who are leaving at the end of August.  Andrew Royer will continue as the undergraduate representative but a new graduate student will need to be appointed. 

Invitations to new ITPB members must be issued before August 31, 2008.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.