Next meeting 3/13/97
Attending: Michael Pickett, Bill Scarborough, Jim Dronsfield, Brian Eder, Betty LeCompagnon, Robert Wolpert, Marion Shepard, Evan Scheesssele, Pakis Bessias, Roger Loyd, Melissa Mills, Charles Register, Albert Eldridge, Les Saper, John Board, Dick Danner, Landen Bain, Ginny Cake, Bob Currier, John Eisenmenger, Bill Scarborough, Paul Harrod, John Sigmon, Alex Reutter
Review of Minutes
The minutes from the February 13, 1997 meeting were approved.
ACPUB Clusters Update and Discussion
Charlie Register stated that cluster problems are reported to the OIT help desk, patterns are tracked. New posters are being made for the clusters with the OIT help desk phone numbers. OIT would like to know about persistent problems affecting the clusters. Email growth is doubling each 6-8 months. The machines are monitored for utilization. Mike Pickett reminded everyone that an order for SUN machines is to go out soon.
Charlie Register said that we can swap out one-third of our machines each year. We may, however, end up with different types of machines each year. Other options are to swap out all machines each year to three years. John Board wanted us to investigate these other options and possibly sell all machines each year. Mike Pickett will look into other options including leasing, and also find out who may want to buy the SUNs. Bob Currier foresees no network related problems in the short term and in the longer term with planned new upgrades.
Year 2000 Update
Billy Herndon of OIT discussed the Year 2000 problem. An overview document has been produced about the Year 2000 problem as it relates to OIT. Billy Herndon handed out an inventory of current systems and when they would fail. The Human Resources and Payroll systems are at the highest risk. Student systems are at some risk since the new People Soft system is not available today. OIT will be raising the awareness of Departments about this issue through its web page and consulting services.
Computer Use Policy Discussion
Bill Van Alstyne of the Duke Law Faculty reviewed the Computer Use Policy endorsed by ITAC on 11/21/96. Overall the document is good. There is no need to produce a long document for this purpose. In the second paragraph where the document refers to other University policies, these policies should be formal drafted policy, not ad hoc. The phrase "and users should not expect that their messages or files are private" should be deleted from the paragraph. In the third paragraph the "appearance" of a violation should invoke more inquiry, not necessarily automatic limitation of access. The last sentence of the fourth paragraph "If the violation appears to constitute a criminal offense as defined by local, state, or federal statutes, the appropriate authorities will be notified" should be eliminated Appearance of violation does not require notification to Federal and State employees, again, only additional inquiry should result at this point.
Tom Rowe of the Duke Law Faculty also reviewed the document. He was in overall agreement with Bill Van Alstyne but had a few additional comments. He suggested that we elaborate on the second sentence in the fourth paragraph. A more representative title for the document would be security and privacy policy rather than acceptable use. In the second paragraph, another word should be used for endemic. In the third paragraph, first sentence another word should be used for generally. In the fourth paragraph the word "adjudication" may not be appropriate.
Robert Wolpert thanked Bill Van Alstyne and Tom Rowe for their thoughtful comments and assistance in refining the policy. The meeting was adjourned.