Administrative Services | Information Technology Services | Financial Aid | University Communications | Student Affairs

ITAC

March 21, 2000

I. EDUCAUSE Guide to Evaluating Technology on Campus

The group talked its way through this document with the eventual objective being a response to the EDUCAUSE questions to be posted on the Denison website. Some of the questions could be answered with a number or yes/no, but for others a narrative explanation may be appropriate. In the past, the Computing at Denison document (one page, two sides, trifold) has served as an orientation to computing technology for new and prospective students. A response to the EDUCAUSE document addresses many of the same questions, and should probably be referenced by a URL in any future version. It was pointed out that our answers to questions, from the liberal arts point of view, might not always be the answers that make us look "most wired". Prof. Jacobsen also pointed out that the state of technology should not be presented as if it is the sole criterion for choosing a college; when possible, technology responses should refer to other institutional strengths.

Janell Baran has placed the EDUCAUSE Guide questions on the web so anyone can add answers and read the responses of others. This is a web page that is backed by a genuine database ? a pattern for things to come. The web page is available to those on the Denison campus only.

The EDUCAUSE document is not intended to be a competition that will lead to a ranking (as is the case for the Yahoo! "most wired" survey). Draft(s) of Denison?s response to the EDUCAUSE list will come to IRAB for comment prior to official publication.

II. Relationship to Commercial Entities

A. Blink.com offers a service (storage of individual?s bookmarks on an internet server so they can be accessed from any location) and a modest payment stream to Denison in return for posting an icon that links to blink.com on top Denison web pages. The CWIS Steering Committee had ruled against links to commercial entities about four years ago, but at that time the prohibition was based in part on an NSF rule against commercial traffic on networks it subsidized - NSF subsidized the original cost of linking Denison to OARnet in Columbus. The NSF commercial traffic restriction has since been lifted. Allowing a commercial icon at this time would nonetheless represent a change in that policy. It was also pointed out that the potential commercial value of individual bookmarks belonging to people on our campus is huge. "Data mining" of that information and subsequent directed advertising could represent an encroachment upon, if not an outright violation of, individual privacy rights. Consensus seemed to favor not pursuing an agreement with blink.com.

B. college-talk.com is a trash web site that uses the name "Denison University" without permission and in proximity to links to questionable web sites that have no connection with the university. As a first step, it was recommended that office of Finance & Management write a request-to-desist letter to college-talk.com.

III. Equipment Budget and Summer 2000 Projects.

A. Projects - Early Start list was reviewed. Orders are already out for:

1. a CourseInfo server (to be used for the Spring Faculty Workshop), and
2. Wiring upgrades in the Fellows Computer Room, the Library, and in Curtis West.

Acquisition of proto-standard computers for evaluation and software image development and for Ghost software (a tool to help distribute software onto desktop computers) was approved.

The 4th year replacement of equipment in the Library Bibliographic Room was discussed briefly. Mary Prophet noted that the 1996 computers in the BI Room are unable to perform some resource access functions at all. Proceeding to upgrade the lab as soon as possible was endorsed.

Upgrades to the OPUS server (administrative Banner/Oracle system) and Firewall Training for two ComServ staff were not discussed.

The request for 3rd year replacement of the Economics Lab (with faculty desktop stations), the Mathematics & Computer Science (Olin 217) Lab and the Modern Language Lab were discussed briefly.

According to Seth Patton, the computing equipment budget for 00-01 is likely to be about $800,000, near where it was prior to the Denison 2000 Technology Initiative (98-00) and somewhat less than what Computing Services had anticipated in its 00-01 request. Requests for computing equipment from all departments was, at last count, $ 2,036,619. Substantial fiscal restraint will clearly be in order as requests are approved.

Under these circumstances the group felt uncomfortable even trying to approach the 3rd year replacement issue for the three academic department labs without more information about amounts already committed and more detail about other highest priority needs. Joe Fleming will produce spreadsheets that put tentative numbers in the "April" column of the budget. Decisions about projects need to be made soon for both personnel scheduling and equipment acquisition.