|
EdTech Minutes for Tuesday, 23
November 2004
11:30 am -12:15 pm, St Edmund’s 361
Attending: Mike
Battig (chair), John Devlin, Joe McLaughlin, Greta Pangborn; and
ex officio members: Bill Anderson (CIO), Dennis Voight (CEPC),
Sue Breeyear (IT).
Agenda:
1.
Minutes & housekeeping
·
Minutes from the previous meeting were approved as
submitted
2. Suggestions for next “brown bag lunch”
(Feb./March w/ Richard K.)
·
Mike contacted Richard about a possible presentation
next February
·
Richard responded (in four minutes) that he will be
available for a presentation
·
We need to explore a Tuesday or Thursday time—Mike
will consult a calendar and offer several dates to Richard
·
Mike will secure a room through either the registrar
or special events
3. eCollege presentation at Dec. 3 Faculty
Assembly
·
Cynthia proposed making a presentation/advertisement
for eCollege at the next Faculty Assembly
·
It was proposed that this be done possibly as an
EdTech committee report with a 2-3 minute format summarizing student
and faculty involvement to date
·
It was decided that the report could go forward as
endorsed by EdTech and Bill will work this out with Zsu, time
permitting in the Assembly agenda
4. Other Business/Updates
·
Mike signed the FDL document on behalf of the
committee
·
Discussion of the Linux lab—primarily Mike, Greta,
Bill and Sue
o
Concern was expressed about security—there are two
“floating” security cameras on campus but it is unclear about their
use in labs and equipment has gone missing. Pete Soons would like
to put card-access doors on the lab.
o
A question was raised about lab availability on the
weekends—it should be open
o
A question was raised about upgrading the hardware
next summer—a concern was expressed that the OS needs to be
addressed and hardware issues have been operator generated
o
A question was raised about the number of machines in
the lab and faculty offices—what is counted with the lab? Consensus
indicated machines in faculty offices provided to support the lab
should be counted with the lab assets.
o
Sue will make modifications to the document
·
Student technology concerns
o
Concerns were expressed by students directly to the
trustees at the last trustee meeting
o
There has been some discussion of student concerns
§
Network consistency, particularly for students, has
been an issue—this is a bandwidth issue that impacts student users
§
Students have expressed concern over the type of virus
software being used
§
Concerns have been raised about wireless access in the
library
§
There has been a request for clearer guidance on tech
issues from the Tech Steering Committee
o
Dialog continues
·
EdTech/Tech Steering responsibility clarification
o
Joe solicited clarification on the division and
overlap between these two bodies after our last meeting—and is still
awaiting follow up responses.
o
Joe did receive a response from Bill that was read out
and discussed. (see attached emails at end of minutes)* Bill’s
response may serve as the basis for a point of clarification on the
web site in relation to our mission.
o
Bill also indicated that there is a Tech Plan document
that is being followed (and he and Billy are revising it too).
o
The existing overlap of responsibilities between the
two bodies was acknowledged as generally a good thing
o
Tech Steering and EdTech have some budget oversight
responsibilities in common
o
EdTech was described as the formal channel through
which faculty may address technology concerns
5. Next Meeting: TBA
Respectfully submitted,
John Devlin
|
