TAG feedback on draft BYOD Strategy

21 05 2014

At our May TAG meeting, Calvin Krzywiec (Assistant Director of Network Security & Engineering) presented a draft version of a BYOD Strategy (Bring Your Own Device).  We promised Cal a written compilation of feedback to inform the next draft of the report.  Since the TAG meeting, I’ve also been discussing the draft Strategy with several other interested faculty members, and I’ve done my best to compile all of these conversations in an annotated copy of the draft. These notes represent a sampling of individual faculty members’ reactions and should not be considered an authoritative response from the faculty as a whole.

I believe the draft Strategy bears significant implications for teaching, learning, research, and the faculty work environment, and I’ve recommended that the document undergo careful review by the full Faculty Senate. (As the current Senate Liaison, Dave will share our feedback in a report to the Senate Executive Committee.)

I’d also like to invite additional comments and concerns from all faculty. If your exam week/senior week schedule permits, please take a look at TAG’s written response (annotated PDF) and let us know your thoughts.

[Update: Here’s a summarized comments view of the same annotated PDF.]


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Announcements, Mobile, Security

TAG Meeting Notes – 2013-09-04

5 09 2013

TAG Meeting September 4, 2013 2:00pm-2:50pm

Attendees:

Jeremy Brees, Tim Cannon, Paul Cutrufello, Kim Daniloski, Dave Dzurec, Tara Fay, Jim Franceschelli, Eugeniu Grigorescu, Andrew LaZella, Sandy Pesavento, Kristen Yarmey

1. Introductions

We introduced two new TAG members for this year: Dr. Andrew LaZella (Philosophy, CAS) and Jeremy Brees (Management and Marketing, KSOM). We’re still hoping to recruit an additional faculty representative from PCPS – please let us know if you have any suggestions!

2. Brief Reports

LMS Group (Tara)

The Learning Management System Working Group recommended at the end of Spring 2013 that we switch from Angel to Desire2Learn (see full report for details). TAG members Tara Fay (Biology), Sandy Pesavento (Education), and Teresa Conte (Nursing) all served on the LMS Group, along with fellow faculty members Maureen Carroll (Math) and Julie Nastasi (OT).

The University has since signed on with Desire2Learn. As VP for Planning and CIO Jerry DeSanto announced in July, Desire2Learn will be available for use in Spring 2014, and Angel will be available until June 1, 2014 (so D2L and Angel will run in parallel in Spring 2014).

Staff members in CTLE and ITDA have been working on an implementation plan. We’ve been asked not to share details yet, since the plan hasn’t been finalized, but the LMS Group will be presenting their plans to the Faculty Senate and Deans Conference in the very near future. We’ll post a conversion schedule here when there’s more information available.

Eugeniu noted that CTLE plans to do some pilot course conversions with several faculty members early on in the process – particularly faculty members whose Angel courses have a lot of specialized content.  (Tara has already volunteered to be one of the pilot participants.) There will be trainings and demonstrations available for faculty.  Let TAG know if you have questions or requests related to the LMS transition and we’ll pass them along to CTLE and ITDA.

Website Proposal Group (Dave)

Dave, Jeremy S., Kristen, and Katie met with Hal Baillie, Jerry DeSanto, Gerry Zaboski, and Vince Carilli in May to discuss the Website Maintenance Proposal that members of TAG drafted last year as a solution for the complex issue of maintaining and updating departmental websites. All parties generally agreed that maintaining departmental websites is a serious issue affecting recruitment of students and faculty, but unfortunately a new position (full time or part time) is not an option. TAG will table this issue unless we come up with other options to explore.

On a related note, during the switch to the new responsive design for the University website this summer, some departments were prepared for the conversion and had sized images uploaded in time, but others did not.

Acceptable Use Policy (Dave)

The Acceptable Use Policy drafts are moving forward and will go to the University Governance Council and the Faculty and Staff Senates this semester.

Identity Finder (Kristen)

At our April 2013 meeting, IT Services Director Jim Franceschelli and Information Security Director Adam Edwards brought a proposal for Identity Finder Automated Scans to TAG for faculty feedback. TAG shared two main concerns from faculty:

1) Decreased performance of computers during Identity Finder Scans — Adam had explained that the automated scans would be implemented with IT staff members first, so that he’d be able to smooth out the process before implementing with faculty. Jim noted that the staff rollout had gone smoothly and IT Services had not received any complaints about decreased performance. The *first* Identity Finder scan tends to take the longest, but subsequent scans are quick.

2) IRB data – concerns that Identity Finder scans of machines storing human research subject data or client files would breach subject confidentiality. We were working over the summer on preparing recommendations for faculty members who store IRB data on how to encrypt and password protect their data folders, such that the data would be protected from Identity Finder scans but (perhaps more importantly) also from external malicious attacks. Kristen will check in with Adam to find out the status of the recommendations.

All TAG members in attendance volunteered to serve as pilot participants for faculty implementation of Identity Finder prior to full rollout.

Jim recommended that faculty members run their own Identity Finders scans ASAP due to the increase in malicious attacks on campus computers — IT Services can clean and return faculty desktops much more quickly if a recent Identity Finder scan has confirmed the absence of confidential or sensitive data.

Information Resources Advisory Council (Kristen)

IRAC will meet twice this academic year, in October and March. TAG normally sends two faculty representatives to IRAC meetings. Paul Cutrufello volunteered to continue serving on IRAC this year. Andrew LaZella volunteered to serve as the second representative depending on the schedule for IRAC meetings. Kristen will contact Robyn Dickinson for IRAC meeting dates.

3. Items for Discussion

University Website Changes (Kristen)

During the summer, there were several major changes to the University’s web presence. Kristen opened the floor for feedback or comments on these transitions:

  • Academic server (academic.scranton.edu) decommissioning — Kristen worked with Adam Edwards in Information Security to reach out to faculty members who still had content on academic. CTLE offered support for faculty who needed help moving their content, generally recommending that faculty members use existing templates in the University’s content management system (CMS). While the transition seemed to go smoothly, there is still a need for a place or host for faculty and student web development. At least one faculty member had needs that could not be fulfilled in the CMS.
  • Responsive redesign of www.scranton.edu — There are several reports of templates not quite making a smooth transition – e.g., Faculty/Staff pages like the History Department’s, dropdown links on the Provost’s website, etc.
  • m.scranton.edu takedown — The Library had issues with this, but TAG members hadn’t heard any other concerns. [Update 2014-02-12: Lori Nidoh in PR clarified that m.scranton.edu had not been taken down. Instead, automatic redirects had been implemented.]
  • my.scranton.edu (Luminis) upgrade — TAG members reported several ways in which the new interface unintuitive. Student schedules are difficult (for students) to find, as are the Faculty/Staff directory, class rosters, and course evaluations. However, TAG members agreed that by now most people have figured out where links are, so we don’t want to request changes to the Faculty Tab at this point.

WordPress (Kristen)

The University set up a local WordPress network in late 2011. It now hosts admissions blogs, the Library blog, and the History Department blog. IR staff members had indicated that they were working on developing guidelines for how the WordPress network could be used and creating a process through which sites on the network could be requested.

In the meantime, several faculty members have requested WordPress sites for other uses – internal collaboration, classroom use, etc.  To date, while internal collaboration requests have been accommodated, IR has denied requests for classroom use. Jim explained that IR is working on determining what level of support they can provide. For example, while supporting one faculty member’s WordPress site would not be time intensive, supporting 30-40 classroom sites would be an issue — whose job does this become? There are also other issues IR wants to consider before providing class-based WordPress support – e.g., archiving student work, providing access and security, etc.  IR’s preference would be to provide support for classroom blogs via Desire2Learn once we convert over from Angel. Kristen asked Eugeniu if one of the D2L faculty pilots could include a blogging feature so that faculty members can see what blogging features are or aren’t available in D2L.

IR staff members are meeting to discuss the WordPress service in a few weeks. Kristen asked if faculty members can participate in this conversation, and Jim said that he will let TAG know when faculty input is needed. TAG will expect to see drafted language on service levels for WordPress at our November meeting, in the hopes that the service may be available for use in Spring 2014.

TAG Senate Status (Dave)

Dave (as TAG’s Faculty Senate liaison) reported that Senate president Rebecca Mikesell would like to propose that TAG become a full Senate Committee, (possibly called the Technology Advisory Committee). The membership criteria would be the same as we discussed last year for TAG as a subcommittee of the Academic Support committee — that is, flexible membership aiming for representation from CAS, PCPS, KSOM, and the Library, with at least one faculty Senator, who will serve as TAG’s liaison to the Senate. Dave noted that if TAG is a full Senate committee, TAG’s Senate liaison will serve on the Senate Executive committee.

TAG members had no objections to the proposal, which will likely be brought up for a vote at the September 13 Senate meeting.

4. New Business

Jim gave us some quick updates on changes that will affect or interest faculty:

  • Desktop computer logins — by the end of 2013, logins for desktop computers will change to the user’s R number and my.scranton password – so users will not have to remember a separate desktop password. This is part of the continued implementation of Active Directory authentication.
  • Google Chrome browser — IR will begin providing Google Chrome to University computers via KBOX. There are still some details to be worked out on this – Jim will let us know when it will happen and what will happen for users who already have Chrome installed.
  • Office 365 — We converted to Office 365 from Live@Edu over the summer. We’ve already benefited from increased email storage space and access to “lite” cloud versions of Office software. We will see a few new features later this fall, including Lync instant messaging and SharePoint collaboration software.

Kristen and Dave will meet with Jerry DeSanto, Robyn Dickinson, Lorraine Mancuso, and Jim on September 25 for a full “road map” discussion of what’s coming this year from IR for faculty.

The meeting adjourned at 2:50pm – TAG will reconvene on Wednesday, October 2 at 2:00pm in LSC591 (CTLE Conference Room).


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Angel and Desire2Learn, Announcements, CMS and University Website, Minutes, Website Proposal

TAG Departmental Website Proposal at the Faculty Senate

12 04 2013

Today, Jeremy presented the TAG proposal for the upkeep and maintenance of the departmental websites to the faculty senate for feedback. The proposal was briefly overviewed by Jeremy, who then opened the floor for comments and responses from the faculty to such a proposal. A brief summary of the comments follows.

  • Many of the faculty were in support of the proposal, agreeing that the time involved in updating the website is a barrier to frequent updates. Often mentioned was the idea that we faculty are often not experts in the display of such information. Thus, a number of faculty were in support of the document.
  • The provost, Hal Baille, commented that the Committee for University Image and Promotion is aware of this proposal and in support of such a position. He emphasized the fact that, more than a public relations issue, the departmental websites are an admissions issue. Getting quality students, especially in a time when universities are competing for good students, means having a standout webpage. More than half of the incoming students use the university webpage as a very important criterion for determining which university they attend. Thus, it is very valuable, from an admissions perspective, to attract quality students, and the website is an important tool in the process.
  • A comment was made about the University’s web infrastructure, and that spending money on such a position may only be a small bandage on a problematic, and potentially outdated infrastructure. One Senator commented that the webservers run software that is costly run when there are cheaper, more-secure options that may be available, which can allow webpages to run more common web software packages, such as WordPress, PhP, or MySQL.
  • Another Senator questioned the necessity of such a position and the frequency of needed updates. Certain departments and programs, the Senator stated, simply may not have updates that can or should be implemented on a regular basis. If this is a consistent event across many of the departments, forcing updates may not make for a better website. Another Senator disagreed, stating that certain national accrediting bodies require yearly updates of programatic content on websites, so, at a minimum, such updates can an should be made. In addition, it was stated that such updates are not “easy” for faculty and staff to implement.
  • In terms of the staffing of the position, it was suggested to explore the current employees of the university before requesting an external hire. There may be current employees and/or positions with the appropriate skill set that can be re-purposed to fill this role. It is important to mention here, that the website proposal group did not feel that it was within its purview to make financial or administrative recommendations about this position. We simply request that such a position exist, and that it should be within the administrative sections of the University to decide the specifics of such a position. This group does recommend, and will make explicit in future versions of the proposal, that due to the extensive collaboration with faculty that this position should be housed within Academic Affairs.
  • Other faculty expressed concerns that this position could be used as a tool for Public Relations as opposed to a vehicle for expression of the faculty and their departments. It is not the intention of the sub-group that this position interfere in any way with the web-based expression of any faculty member. Our group intends that this position be a tool for faculty to assist them in presenting content in the form desired by the faculty of that department. This position should assist faculty, not remove them from the process. Faculty and departments will not be required to use this position, but this subgroup feels that it should exist as an option for those that do. Furthermore, we feel that there are sufficient departments and faculty that will make use of such a position to make it worthwhile.

TAG is currently working on implementing all the above suggestions into the next version of this proposal and thanks everyone at the Senate meeting for their participation and lively discussion. As always, anyone with comments, questions, or feedback of any kind is encouraged to email us at tag-members@royallists.scranton.edu, or email the chair or the subgroup responsible for the creation of this document at jeremy.sepinsky@scranton.edu.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : CMS and University Website, Minutes, Website Proposal

TAG Meeting 2013-03-04

4 03 2013

TAG’s second Spring 2013 meeting was this morning – and we actually finished up 5 minutes early! Here’s what’s going on:

1. My.Scranton/Luminis upgrade

We spent most of the meeting talking about the upcoming upgrade to Luminis 5 (Luminis is the software platform behind the my.scranton portal), which will happen during spring break. Thanks to IR, TAG has had the opportunity to weigh in with faculty feedback on what the new portal page should look like – especially the Faculty Tab.  IT staff member Joe Casabona was kind enough to stop by our meeting to answer questions and listen to comments and suggestions about what’s most important to faculty and where it should go.

More details about the Faculty Tab in a following post, but the short version is that TAG and IR will be continuing to work on it both before and after the upgrade goes live. The new version of Luminis is thankfully a lot easier to update than the current version, so we’ll have an easier time making changes.

IR will be sending out a University-wide email later today about the upgrade.  The TAG members in attendance agreed to remind their departments about the upgrade at their next department meetings, and Dave Dzurec (History) will give a brief announcement about the upgrade at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

TAG asks that all faculty members 1) report any problems you have with the new portal to the Technology Support Center (tsc@scranton.edu or 570-941-HELP) and 2) send any broader questions or comments to TAG so that we can share them with Joe and the rest of the IR staff members working on the project.

2. TAG Leadership for 2013-2014

TAG co-chair and co-founder Jeremy Sepinsky (Physics) will be taking a leave of absence for the 2013-2014 year, which means there are some big shoes to fill for next year. We discussed how TAG leadership should be determined, now and in the future, especially in the context of the formalization of TAG’s status within the Faculty Senate. We didn’t come to any conclusions today, but there was general agreement that:
  • Having 2 co-chairs is beneficial due to the time commitment and workload.
  • Having (at least) 1 co-chair be a Faculty Senator would be ideal, since TAG needs a Faculty Senator to serve as a liaison between TAG and the Senate’s Academic Support Committee.
  • A rotating chair model (each co-chair serves for two years but with staggered terms, so each year there’s one outgoing co-chair and one incoming co-chair) would be helpful so that there’s continuity. This would also make the commitment of chairing more manageable, since it would only be a two-year commitment.
  • Rotating membership in general might be beneficial in order to sustain the group and prevent burnout.

Kristen Yarmey (Library) is willing to continue as co-chair in 2013-2014 to smooth the transition for the incoming co-chair.  Jeremy will look into existing Faculty Senate committee models for selecting leadership. Kristen will follow up with the Faculty Senate executive committee for an update on TAG’s Senate status.

3. Technology and Learning Discussion Group and Communicating about Technology on Campus

This semester Kristen and Bryan Burnham (Psychology) are hosting an informal Technology and Learning Discussion Group as an extension of a Clavius-like faculty seminar on Technology in the Mind they hosted during Fall 2012. The group’s purpose is to discuss readings and issues relating to technology and learning in a broad sense. All University community members are welcome to attend – meetings are biweekly on Monday nights at 6pm. Kristen is posting topics and meeting announcements to Bboard and here on the TAG site.

We had a brief discussion about how various technology groups on campus (like the Discussion Group and the newly formed Social Media group) can share what they’re doing and talking about with IR, CTLE, TAG, etc. Jim Franceschelli (IT Services) noted that communication about what technologies are being discussed would help IR staff members prepare for and respond to emerging needs. Communication between IR and TAG has been helpful to both groups – can we establish that kind of channel with the Discussion Group and other similar efforts? (IR staff members are welcome to participate in the group, but evening meeting times are difficult for most staff members’ schedules.)

Sandy Pesavento (Education) agreed that more communication about what technology is being tested or implemented around the campus (especially within different colleges/departments) would be useful. She suggested that TAG members share brief updates about technology initiatives in their departments/colleges at the beginning of TAG meetings (or possibly on the TAG WordPress site, since meeting time is short).

Kristen floated the idea of a collaborative blog or website for technology on campus, that could aggregate feeds of posts/events/news from IR, TAG, CTLE, the Library, and any other technology-related groups (formal or informal) on campus.

Kristen will discuss the idea of a shared technology site with CTLE, Library, and IR staff members to see if it might be of interest. She will also work with Jim and Bryan to look for ways in which IT staff can connect with the discussion group, possibly via daytime scheduling in future semesters and/or by integrating discussions into existing events like the Library/CTLE Technology on Your Own Terms workshops or IR’s IT Forums.

4. Ongoing Projects

TAG input is still needed for discussions about faculty course data and FERPA considerations for cloud computing. Faculty members should let Kristen know if they are interested in leading or participating in these discussions.

5. Code of Responsible Computing / Acceptable Use Policy

Dave has posted the latest draft of the revised Code of Responsible Computing, now the Acceptable Use Policy. Faculty should send feedback to either Dave or Jim so that their committee can incorporate comments before the draft goes through the formal policy process next semester.

 


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Announcements, Minutes, TAG Administrative

TAG Senate Status

2 01 2013

(This post is long overdue – many apologies! My notes on the Senate discussion are a little rough, so please send me any corrections/clarifications you have.)

At the November 9 meeting, the Faculty Senate passed a few motions (#3.2012-13, #4.2012-13, #5.2012-13) regarding faculty representation on University committees. I asked for some clarification at the meeting about what committees would fall under the new language, since we’ve got a lot of TAG members working on various projects. Further discussion with members of the Senate Executive Committee indicated that there was some murkiness about TAG’s official connection to the Senate.  Back in 2010, when Jeremy and I approached the Senate about creating TAG, we got verbal approval as a subcommittee of the Senate’s Academic Support committee, but there wasn’t ever a vote or any formal documentation of our status.

The Senate Executive Committee was kind enough to sit down with me early in December to hash out some language formalizing TAG’s status as a Senate subcommittee.  From a TAG perspective, we were looking for a structured, defined relationship to the Senate (and a clear communication channel to the Senate), but with a flexible membership — ideally, TAG’s membership should be representative of the faculty as a whole, but should also take into consideration a faculty member’s interest in or expertise related to technology. I wrote up some notes for the Senators about TAG’s current makeup and the kinds of projects we’ve been working on.

At the December 14 Senate meeting, the Executive Committee introduced the following motion:

A proposal to change the Faculty Senate Bylaws to include the Technology Advisory Group (TAG) as a formal subcommittee of the Academic Support Committee.

The Academic Support Committee has from five to ten members of whom a majority must be members of the Faculty Senate. This committee prepares recommendations for consideration by the Faculty Senate on all aspects of support for academic programs. The Academic Support Committee has oversight of the Technology Advisory Group (TAG), a standing subcommittee of the ASC. The total membership of TAG is flexible, but should strive for representation from each of the five colleges.* The subcommittee must include one Faculty Senator who serves as a liaison between TAG and the ASC.** The Faculty Senator can, but is not required to, serve as both a liaison to the ASC and a college representative. TAG is free to seek expertise outside the faculty*** to complete its membership.

A discussion followed, primarily focusing on oversight and composition of TAG. There were a few concerns about TAG’s level of autonomy – some Senators suggested that TAG be chaired**** by a Senator on the Academic Support committee, and/or that TAG’s members be appointed by Senators from Academic Support. Others were concerned about micromanaging TAG when, to date, the group has been functioning well. General consensus seemed to be that more clarification on TAG’s goals and oversight may be needed in the future, but that for now the proposed language would be sufficient.

Some clarifications were proposed — “representation from each of the five colleges” was changed to reflect that CGCE does not have its own faculty, and “must include one Faculty Senator” was changed to “must include at least one Faculty Senator”. With this clarified wording****, the motion passed.

Since the proposal is an amendment to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, it will next go to a full faculty vote for approval, sometime after the start of the Spring 2013 semester. A 2/3 majority of those voting is needed to amend the bylaws.

Many thanks to the Executive Committee and the rest of the Faculty Senators for their time and consideration!

——————————

Notes:

* Currently, we have 4 members from CAS, 4 from PCPS, 2 from KSOM, and 1 from the Library.

**Currently, TAG’s membership includes two Faculty Senators (Katie Iacocca and Dave Dzurec).

***From the beginning, TAG has included staff participants in order to facilitate communication about technology on campus.

****For the record, neither Jeremy nor I are opposed to a change in leadership for TAG. Any volunteers? :)

*****I  don’t trust my notes on the exact wording changes – I’ll post the altered language when the meeting minutes come out.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Announcements, TAG Administrative

Email Transition: Faculty Senate Presentation

11 03 2011

Jeremy and I will be at the Faculty Senate meeting today to do a brief presentation on the email transition to Microsoft Live @ Edu.

For reference, I’m posting my slides, and you can also find my notes here in PDF format.

[slideshare id=7233533&doc=emailtransition2011-110311100121-phpapp01]


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Email

CNAC Reauthentication

6 01 2011

On January 12th, and regularly on the second Wednesday of every month, IT Services is going to require all faculty and staff to enter their username and password (as you would if you were to log on to my.scranton) in order to get internet access. This allows IT to ensure that your computer has the most up to date security software and protection.

On January 6th, faculty and staff received the following e-mail from IT Services:

As part of Information Resources’ continuing effort to enhance our services and increase our information security posture, the Cisco Network Access Control (CNAC) will require individuals to re-authenticate to gain network access on a monthly basis.

On Wednesday, January 12th all end-users should expect to enter their University username and password into the CNAC agent before gaining access to any network resources. This process will allow us to continually assess the validity and health of our computing environment. The CNAC re-authentication process will routinely occur on the second Wednesday of each month.

Thank you for your patience and understanding as we implement these changes. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the Technology Support Center at 570-941-HELP or at techsupport@scranton.edu

Click here for more information on CNAC authentication.

Click here for a detailed discussion of the new CNAC security procedures.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Network and Infrastructure, Security

Past Faculty Feedback on Email

20 10 2010

For anyone who was interested in Bryan’s comment on yesterday’s email update post, here’s a PDF of the Summary Results of the Faculty Senate Email Survey that Bryan and Tim ran back in Spring 2009.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Email

Faculty Senate, Meet TAG

11 05 2010

The UofS Technology Advisory Group will make its official debut at 3:15pm this Friday, May 11, 2010 at the monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate in Brennan 500.  We’ll be discussing TAG’s purpose, goals, and next steps, and we’ll also be soliciting recommendations for new members.  All full-time faculty members are invited to attend.

TAG is designed to be a flexible advisory group, sponsored by the Faculty Senate and reporting to the Senate’s Academic Support Committee.   Many thanks to outgoing Senate President Rob Waldeck for helping us get started, and we’re looking forward to working with incoming President Gerry Biberman!


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags:
Categories : TAG Administrative