University Standards Committee
September 18, 1996
Meeting Minutes
Committee members in attendance:
Bill Willis, Associate Provost for Academic Computing, co-chair
Sam Averitt, Computing Center
Bill Bayley, School of Design
Leo Buckmaster, Administrative Computing Services
Sandy Connolly, College of Textiles
Joe Flowers, College of Humanities & Social Sciences
Sherry Kappel, Administrative Computing Services
Brian Kemerait, Management Information Resource Center
Charles Kneifel, College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences
Carl Malstrom, Computing Center
Ron Melbourne, Administrative Computing Services
Tom Miller, College of Engineering
Molly Munro, College of Education & Psychology
Bill Padgett, Computing Center
Dan Steen, College of Management
Eric Wiebe, College of Education & Psychology
Dan Willits, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences
Absent:
Steve Keto, Associate Vice Chancellor, Finance and Information Systems, co-chair
Siamak Khorram, Computer Graphics Center/Forest Resources
John Ulmschneider, University Libraries
Andy Wasilewski, College of Veterinary Medicine
Overview:
July minutes were approved with minor changes. The WWW Subcommittee turned in a new
guidelines draft, and was working on a purely graphic home page and how to target audiences better;
a web policy committee is being formed. The Data & Data Access Standards, Data Communication
Protocols, and E-mail Subcommittees had no reports. The User Authentication/DCE Subcommittee
reported that the web authentication project had started and would hopefully be available by
January; Bill Willis said they should also monitor other options. Bill Willis and Steve Keto are
working on the single signon committee. The Desktop Standards Subcommittee will dissolve in
favor of the new Target Delivery Subcommittee. Bill Willis solicited suggestions on this, and one
result was a MIME type subcommittee. IRMC has approved a personal use policy and the University
is working on its own. Also, the Legislature gave $13 - 14 million to UNC-GA for use toward the
MCNC network and supercomputer, with advisory positions for the various universities. Bill Willis
reported that the Instructional Technology Expo went well. Next meeting is Wednesday, November
20.
Discussion Detail:
Sandy Connolly is sitting in for Sam Moore's position until a new director is hired for Textiles.
- July minutes were amended to note that Dan Steen had been in attendance. Also, the third
BellSouth rate option of $4.95/month + one cent/minute was added. Minutes were passed as
amended.
- WWW Implementation: The home page was amended such that Academic Information became
two buttons: Academic Info and Colleges & Schools; the Academic Info menu line was
expanded to list Admissions and Registration & Records, with links. Revised Guidelines were
given to Steve Keto and Bill Willis for their review/approval. A new "Hours of Operation"
page was ready to go on-line, and work with CitySearch was done with that to go on-line soon,
as well. The committee has begun an ongoing discussion on how to better reach target
audiences; one result will be a Prospective Students page. They've also begun work on a purely
graphical revision of the home page which will include buttons/areas for "daily news."
Bill Willis said that someone from Admissions would work with the committee on the
Prospective Students page. Carl Malstrom noted that all North Carolina schools need to be
listed on the "Other Colleges" page. Bill also said that there was currently a list of policy
questions that needed to be addressed -- e.g., advertising on the Athletics pages, students using
University trademarks, creating web pages for non-profits (yes, if faculty/staff is member of the
organization and involvement is part of professional development). He is gathering a policy
committee to include the Chancellor's Office, Joe Sanders (Public Affairs), etc., which will
make recommendations to the administrative and/or academic policy councils. Last, it was
commented that the home page and the calendar program continue to work well -- in particular,
organization by topic.
- Data and Data Access Standards: No report.
- Data Communication Protocols: Sam Averitt had nothing to report. Bill Willis mentioned the
developing ATM backbone and verified that it will be IP. Also, he got to see MPEG over ATM
at the Instructional Technology Expo, and it looked great. He asked Sam to schedule a seminar
on this in the Fall.
- Electronic Mail: Charley Kneifel said they'd have a report at the next meeting.
- User Authentication/DCE: Ron Melbourne said the WWW authentication project had started
(for those with web documents who need authentication) -- there will be encrypted capability.
It should be ready for testing by November 15, and hopefully available for widespread use in
January. Bill Willis said this will be an important step and people are excited; he also noted
that there were a couple of issues to consider: they've been moving toward DCE for some time
and they shouldn't change that, but they should also look at some other options -- for example,
the Novell/HP partnership (noting that the Novell rep could visit if it seemed appropriate). He
said it would help for everyone to work their information sources and see where others are
going; he doesn't want DCE to end up like OSI. Leo mentioned that Penn State and Michigan
State are both using DCE, and that Michigan would be presenting at National CAUSE.
Bill also said that he and Steve were working on a charge for the single signon committee,
which would include non-voting members from other schools. Ron asked how this would differ
from the authentication committee, and Bill said he wasn't sure -- they will review the charges.
If anyone wishes to participate, they should let him know (Ron is already on the list).
- Desktop Standards: Bill Padgett said they hadn't met recently but that the shift from desktop
standards to target delivery would need to be much more comprehensive. Given that most of the
original committee was now gone, this might be a good time to make the move. Bill Willis said
that the Computing Center and the Management Information Resource Center already define
minimum standards and made the motion to change this committee to target delivery, which was
passed.
- Target Delivery: Bill Willis said discussions used to center around minimum hardware and
operating systems, whereas focus was now on applications and user types -- what is needed to
deliver to targets? He said they can create student systems, etc., help with the logistics of
computer support, and help negotiate with providers, but he's worried about the shelf life of the
instructional materials they're creating and who is able to use them. He had thoughts regarding
protocol and content type definition, but didn't quite know how to describe; possibilities
included MIME standards, appropriate viewers, and how to mail attachments --
university-wide documents.
Leo Buckmaster noted that one flexible, adaptable approach might be to start by listing the
problems and who has them. Bill thought this was a good idea and said he would do it. It's
important, however, to look at MIME definition types immediately; he'd originally thought it
was an e-mail committee problem, but it isn't really. Charley Kneifel agreed; he said the
committee needs to look at structure and how messages are routed -- master machine or direct
delivery, and what to do/where to send messages when mailboxes are full. Bill said he'd like to
see "official" messages archived by the sender, rather than the reverse. There was also a
discussion about sharing/disclosure of messages; Bill wanted to classify personal messages as
exempt, while Leo doubted whether that was legal. Bill thought he saw some precedent for this,
however. Carl Malstrom mentioned that Security's distribution of the daily log was now a
federal requirement, but that there were numerous hoops to jump through for e-mail
distribution. Charley didn't think it should be sent via e-mail, and Bill said there were many
questions -- user environments, inability to edit on the user end, etc. There needs to be a way to
distribute University-wide documents -- perhaps HTML, but this is all separate from the e-mail
and WWW committees. Leo suggested a MIME type committee. Bill agreed and said he would
develop a charge quickly; suggestions for membership should be sent to him by the end of the
week.
- IRMC and UNC-GA: Bill Willis said IRMC has approved a formal policy on personal use of
the internet, and will sent it to anyone who so requests. It says that state employees can use
equipment as long as it doesn't add any cost to the state, interfere with their job or involve
commercial work. Leo said this needed to be endorsed by campus and Bill said he was
working on that. He said they were in position to develop a policy regarding personal e-mail --
in particular, that employees don't need to share it with, say, the N&O. Tom Miller asked if that
extended to consulting and Bill said they were still working on it but that it would probably be
considered part of their work here.
Bill said the Legislature moved $13 - 14 million to the University System to continue operation
of the MCNC network and supercomputer. He said they'll form an ex officio steering committee
from assorted campus, and that NC State will have a permanent seat. There will be REN and
MCNC advisory boards comprised of those more directly involved in use. Instead of being a
beneficiary of MCNC, the University will now be a customer, which is good. Leo asked
whether the funding was continuous and Bill said yes, it's a continuous allocation. For the first
few years, it will be piped directly to MCNC, but eventually the steering committee could
contract elsewhere if MCNC doesn't do a good job. Leo asked why Duke and the private
colleges were involved, and was told that this was part of the support they receive from the
State. Ron asked what would happen if the supercomputer went by the wayside: how is the
money controlled and would it go away? Bill said they'd have some say in this.
Non-agenda item: Eric Wiebe asked what Bill Willis' take was on the Instructional Technology
Expo. Bill said he was delighted with the results, especially for a first-time effort -- the systems
worked, there were lots of attendees, it caught the Provost's attention, it provided direct evidence
that the faculty were motivated, and his staff worked very hard on it without bothering him for input.
Next meeting will be Wednesday, November 20.
University Standards Committee Main Menu