Common Systems Group (CSG)

November 28, 2006
Meeting Summary

CSG Attendees: Julie Austin, Ross Bollens, Paul Craft, Jim Davis, Bill Jepson, Max Kopelevich, Kathleen O’Kane, Tom Phelan, Sean Pine, Nick Reddingius, Rose Rocchio, Terry Ryan, Ruth Sabean, Michael Schilling, Marsha Smith, David Snow, Eric Splaver, Michael Van Norman, Don Worth

Reports

  1. Next Generation Network Planning

    Michael Van Norman provided an update on the status of Next Generation Network (NGN) Planning. The NGN team is now working on architectural scenarios. Information will be made visible through the WIKI (www.ucla.net/wiki) so the UCLA community will be able to view how documents are evolving and can provide needed input.

  2. Sophos Renewal

    Ross Bollens recommended the renewal of the campus-wide agreement for Sophos Anti-Virus Software. For some CSG members, Sophos is an adequate product and noted it was in some areas consistently ahead of other vendor products. The decision was made based upon the greatest functionality at a price point that the campus could afford (for example Sophos was half (at $100K) as much as McAfee at $200K).

    The CSG approved the recommendation.

  3. Response to “Policy and Guidelines on Stewardship of Electronic Information Resources”

    Ross Bollens summarized input from CSG, CITI and ITPB and will be responding to UCOP with the following:

    • Openness: UCLA wants to ensure that the guidelines make clear the value of openness at a research and educational institution. Data protection is critically important, but it should be balanced with data accessibility and the sharing of information.
    • Identity and Access Management: The guidelines proposed a policy to present a photo ID for any online access. Implementing this at UCLA would be impractical. The guideline should be changed to adopt a tiered identity structure depending upon the security level of the access required.

    The need to establish audit trails, even though it is somewhat contrary, to the value of openness, was discussed.  Appropriate ways to destroy sensitive data and the devices that store it also needs to be determined.

  4. ITPB recommendations on the “Campus BOL Email and Accounts Policy”

    Marsha Smith reported on the ITPB recommendations for “Campus Email and Accounts Policy”.

    ITPB recommendations:

    • Only the UCLA community, defined as persons in the UCLA payroll or registrar databases will be provisioned full BOL services, which includes remote access.
    • Non-degreed undergraduate students and non-retired, employees who leave UCLA will not be provisioned accounts.
    • Procedures for dealing with deceased individuals and their accounts should conform to UC CHR policies. The procedures should apply to all situations, independent of one’s type, in this case faculty or emeriti. In the specific case of spouses of deceased emeriti faculty, a procedural change needs to be implemented and communicated to existing and future spouses. The deceased emeriti’s BOL account should be inactivated and the spouse should be offered a BOL account in their own name without remote access services. Email coming to the deceased emeriti address can be forwarded to the new email account. There should be a reasonable timeframe before this applies. There may be legitimate reasons why spouses of deceased emeriti or faculty need the actual account.
    • People who are affiliated with UCLA and that provide value to the university (research affiliates, faculty and students in the Extension program, donors, volunteers, and the like) should be provisioned an account without remote access services.
    • Graduate students who have exhausted their leave and are no longer in the registrar system must petition the graduate division for the extension of any UCLA service. Campus account and email providers should follow the policies of the Graduate Division.

    OIT recommendations (based upon ITPB input):

    • Based upon ITPB input above, OIT will write a clear guideline on eligibility to clarify legitimate provisioning of accounts and services. This will be brought back to the ITPB for endorsement.
    • As part of that communication, OIT will create an appropriate recourse for exceptions (approximately 50 each year) - people who are legitimately entitled to full BOL services but are not in the payroll or registrar databases.

Agenda

  1. Summary of report from the FCET on the selection of a Common Collaborative & Learning Environment (CCLE)

    Ruth Sabean, Rose Rocchio, Terry Ryan, Julie Austin and Jim Davis reported to the CSG on the FCET selection of Moodle as UCLA’s common collaborative learning environment system.

    Ruth Sabean reviewed the CCLE Roadmap, detailing the history of the project, the current status and the plans for the future. Terry Ryan summarized the findings of the Assessment Task Force leading to the FCET selection. The analysis can be found in the document Building Infrastructure and Community. The FCET also recommended that UCLA maintain its position in the Sakai community with a focus on interoperability between the two systems.

    There is a planned three to five year adoption cycle, with an opt in strategy as appropriate for participating units. Presently, the plan is to implement an early adopter pilot service by Winter 2007 and select units that want to participate. OIT-ATS is now hosting the early adopter system and with the developer community will roll out test services for early adopter units. With appropriate funding, the production service for will begin in Fall 2007. The adoption process will require looking at ways other schools have implemented these systems. The objective here is to determine the business model, taking into account the different options, organization, and system components.

    Julie Austin presented information regarding various subgroups that have been started, including a functionality group, integration group, and migration group. By Fall 2007, the groups want to have alpha and beta phases finished; other groups will be started that will include support, training, policy and guidelines, and communications groups.

    Jim Davis gave a brief background on the organizational structure, partnerships and process that led to the selection of s single common collaborative learning environment (CC&LE). In the governance process classification matrix we are right at the point of going to the executives and CITI for a funding commitment. He discussed the process by which UCLA will work through outstanding issues such as funding, the CC&LE alignment with other student systems, and the concerns about open source and licensing, intellectual property, and liabilities. The next steps include a presentation to the Chancellor, the ITPB, and CITI.

    CSG input and recommendations:

    CSG recommended the creation of a formal advisory group that includes input from Deans and asking them to select their own representatives.