Computing & Information Services
Computing Policy Committee Meeting Minutes
December 14, 2006
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., ETC 309
Committee members in attendance: David Schiff, Paul Hovda, Luc Monnin, Akihiko Miyoshi, Sonia Sabnis, Marianne Colgrove, Victoria Hanawalt, Karen King, Jon Rivenburg, Ed McFarlane, Peter Steinberger, Stephen Wissow, Alex Botero-Lowry, Marty Ringle, Molly Thurston Parker.
David Schiff called the meeting to order at 11:05 a.m.
Review of the Computer User Agreement (continued)
At the November CPC meeting, the committee began reviewing the User Agreement (UA). Karen King and Gary Norbraten have drafted revised wording for the Confidential Data section to be incorporated into the UA. Marty opened the discussion by inviting comments on the revised UA that was circulated to the committee by email.
Acceptable Uses
David Schiff stated that the 3rd example (bullet point) in the Acceptable Uses section, which reads “Communication among Reed students, faculty, and staff and between members of the Reed community and the rest of the universe,” seemed very general. David asked what that sentence is intended to convey. Marty explained that it was intended to permit the use of email and other electronic forms of communication for external, and possibly personal, uses as well as for internal, academic uses..
Paul Hovda suggested including distinct sections for academic (primary) and personal (secondary) uses, and stating that academic uses have priority over personal uses. Marianne Colgrove pointed out the text already includes the phrase “primarily for academic purposes." After some discussion, Ed McFarlane recommended deleting the “Examples of acceptable uses” sentence entirely.
Stephen Wissow noted that the distinction between academic and personal use is relevant only when an infringement or violation occurs. Peter Steinberger recommended including a statement such as, “In making decisions regarding the uses of computing resources, priority will be given to academic uses.”
Marty asked for a vote on whether or not to delete the “Examples of acceptable uses” sentence entirely. Eight members voted for, and six against. The statement was removed.
Prohibited Uses
David asked what the statement “persistent and un-attended use of non-academic software” [in the “Prohibited Uses” section, under “Examples of prohibited uses”] is intended to prohibit. Marianne explained that it refers to automated, non-academic processes, such as bots. Marty noted that the statement falls under the scope of the statement immediately before it, “excessive non-academic use of network bandwidth or CPU cycles.” The committee decided to delete the “persistent and un-attended use of non-academic software” bullet point.
David asked what the statement "profit-making activities…. unrelated to Reed's academic mission" [in the “Prohibited Uses” section, under “Examples of prohibited uses”] means. Marty responded that the statement is a revision of the prohibition against "commercial uses." The new wording is intended to be less restrictive than the previous wording inasmuch as it allows both purchasing and casual selling activities. This would allow members of the Reed community to do online shopping as well as to sell used goods, but not to engage in retail sales activities.
Vickie noted that the final bullet point under “Examples of prohibited uses,” [reading "not-for-profit activities on behalf of an external organization or institution unless previously approved in writing by the president of Reed College"] is problematic for many staff members who are involved in not-for-profit professional organizations as part of their job (such as library staff who do work for the American Library Association). Marianne suggested that the text reference Reed's academic mission, thus covering professional uses. Jon Rivenburg asked if it should name 'hosting' activities as prohibited. Alex Botero-Lowry observed the distinction between participating in a not-for-profit activity and acting on its behalf. Peter endorsed Marianne’s recommendation to change the text to: "not-for-profit activities unrelated to Reed College’s academic mission, on behalf of an external organization or institution unless previously approved in writing by the president of Reed College." The committee accepted this change.
Confidential Data
Marianne called attention to the paragraph stating:
All College data should be treated as confidential unless approved for release to the public. By law, certain institutional data may not be released without proper authorization. You must adhere to all applicable federal and state laws concerning storage, retention, use, release, and destruction of data.
Under FERPA, certain data is treated as public unless the student opts out. Karen King explained that the intent is to err on the side of keeping data confidential unless the status is known.
Due to time constraints, the discussion of the User Agreement was suspended and will continue at the next CPC meeting. Marty thanked David and the members of the committee for their good work on the User Agreement thus far and wished everyone a happy holiday.
David Schiff adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m.