Area 51 notes – June 3, 2010

Present: Mike Roy, Jeff Rehbach, Shel Sax, Mike Lynch, Mary Backus , Carol Peddie, Terry Simpkins and Doreen Bernier

The ADs reviewed the weekly updates prior to the meeting. The following was addressed.
· Moodle, Papercut and network upgrade should all go through the change management process
· Phoenix project needs to be updated


  • Assign LS/BL report writers –Andy Wentink and Joy Pile will be the report writers for Bread Loaf and the Language Schools. Services need to be evaluated and which reports are needed must be determined.  Terry and Mary will meet to outline reports.
  • May 30 review/Update LIS Strategic Choices/Goals – discussion moved to June 18th AD retreat

LIS Website Team Next Generation – this discussion was postponed for temporarily. Terry (sponsor) and Jess (leader) will refine the team charge and confirm team membership

Annual Report discussion. Work continues on the annual report, outline review needs to be finished by Monday, June 7th, with write-ups completed by August.

Ongoing support of — defining limits of support when people have done custom programming (perl, php) on their sites: should this type of support be on our “not-to-do list”? We had a lengthy discussion on this topic. Mike would like to see a list of pages on this site, identifying the more complex sites. We need to think about having a good environment to support faculty with more extensive sites. Where should faculty have their sites located? We also need to offer options to provide support beyond our limits. Should we hire students to assist?

We reviewed the team agreements made during Fred’s team training workshop. No changes need to be made.

Lengthy discussion about the upcoming network upgrade. Some of the high points:

  • Funds for this project would not come out of our capital budget.
  • The current Cisco maintenance costs would stop.
  • Cabling labor would be included and documentation would be supplied by the vendor.
  • Currently Middsecure is hard to attach to and offers only moderate coverage.
  • When asked, students felt that providing wireless to dorms was not necessary. But, if we provide robust wireless, students will use it. Data should be gathered.
  • Who will prioritize the order of buildings and who will schedule it? (possibly SLAC and housing office).
  • How should the security team be involved?
  • A communications plan needs to be prepared.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *