Computing & Information Services
Computing Policy Committee Meeting Minutes
February 24, 2006
1:00 – 2:00 pm
ETC 309
Contact the CPC at computing-policy@reed.edu.
Committee members in attendance: Alan Shusterman (chair); Jim Fix; Luc Monnin; David Schiff; Irena Swanson; Marty Ringle; Molly Thurston Parker; Ed McFarlane; Vicky Hanawalt; Leslie Limper; Ethan Benatan; Seth Samuel; Karen Perkins-Butzien
Committee members absent: Jon Rivenburg
Alan called the meeting to order at: 1:05 pm.
1. Briefing on the transition to a new file services strategy (Ethan Benatan)
Ethan provided an overview of the function of file services and why we need to replace our current system. CIS is preparing to survey faculty, students, and administrative staff in preparation for developing a new approach to files services. The survey will be web-based and will be announced via email by next week. ACS is contacting staff members for input. Ethan offered to share the survey with CPC members to get their feedback on the questions.
Luc asked about web-based systems such as web-dav. Ethan said that CIS is looking into web-dav, a protocol that allows you to access and share files from any location via the web. A key benefit of this approach is that it works for Macs, Windows, or Linux computers. Seth asked if we are going to restructure the current file system, which consists of different servers with overlapping functions. Ethan responded that this is one of the goals of the project.
Alan asked if users should still keep files on their personal computers if they can put them on the servers and access them from anywhere. Ethan responded that it depends on the amount and size of the file. Each user will be allocated a finite amount of server space. Accessing very large files on servers will be much slower than working on them on your own computer. Alan asked if the servers would be backed up regularly. Ethan said they would and indicated that the three main advantages of server-based files are: accessibility from anywhere, automatic backup, and collaboration support.
Irena asked how the new file services would be compared to Oberon, a current file server. Ethan stated that the system will be easier to use and to access. Seth asked if we were concerned about the potential for data loss when people are editing files opened from remote servers (this has been an issue with Microsoft Word and our current file servers). Ethan shared this concern and promised that the project team will address it as well as technology permits. Jim asked if we were thinking of this more as a file repository than a shared file system. Ethan answered that it will probably have some elements of both.
Ethan will send an advance copy of the survey to any CPC member who requests it.
2. Proposed change in the wording of the Computer Theft, Loss, or Damage Policy (Marty Ringle)
Marty stated that the policy was created three years ago and last updated in the fall of 2005. Since then, Reed has had a number of laptop thefts. In a recent occurrence, a faculty member’s laptop was stolen on campus and he had not taken recommended. He agreed to pay $500 but noted that the policy does not clearly specify what will be required of a faculty or staff member if reasonable precautions against theft have not been taken. The proposed wording change to Section 2 (On-campus) is intended to address that omission:
3. No payment will be required of faculty or staff in the event that computing equipment is stolen from their offices, provided that they have taken reasonable precautions against theft (as indicated above). If appropriate precautions have not been taken, the faculty or staff member may be required to pay $500 toward the replacement of the computer.
Vicki noted that putting a specific amount in the policy may require regular updates. She questioned how long CIS expects $500 to be the reimbursement and how that amount was chosen? Marty indicated that the amount was based on the amount cited in the first paragraph of the policy. He agreed that it might need to be reviewed and updated from time to time.
Alan asked if the $500 is meant to serve as a deterrent or to help CIS cover the cost of replacing the equipment. Marty responded that the $500 charge is intended to do both.
Seth suggested that the wording be changed to “faculty will be required to pay no more than $500”, leaving flexibility about the amount charged. Leslie suggested using the same language as that in the Off-campus section: “faculty or staff member will normally be required to pay $500 toward the replacement or repair of the computer.” This would also provide flexibility.
Irena asked what happened when a cable-protected lap was stolen from library. Marty noted that the person was not required to pay because reasonable precautions had been taken. Ethan mentioned that cables aren’t difficult to defeat; they are effective deterrents to casual pilfering but they won’t stop a dedicated thief.
Alan asked Vickie if faculty are expected to reimburse the library for the full replacement cost of books stolen while in their possession. Vickie replied that the library charges the full cost if they know it (it's not always part of the record) or, if not, they charge a standard replacement cost that's based on the average cost of a book. Alan asked why we wouldn’t do the same with computers. Marty said that the amount is open for discussion.
David asked if a person’s insurance would cover the stolen equipment? Marty said he has asked various people about that and the answers varied widely. Marty mentioned that a faculty member asked if funds from his departmental budget could be used for this purpose. Marty told him that using department funds would not be appropriate. He then asked if chair funds could be used. Ed said it would not be acceptable to use chair funds since that is still college money; funds should be from personal resources. Ed pointed out a person could avoid the charge by asking the college not to replace the stolen computer and instead buy new computer of themselves own.
David asked if the college’s insurance would cover the loss? Ed said no; the deductible was much higher than the cost of a computer. David noted that if people get reimbursed by their insurance company, they should give the college the entire amount they receive. Ed agreed. Karen suggested we pass information about property addendums along to faculty who travel a lot with laptops. Ed suggested that when someone reports a loss, CIS should ask if they have reported it to their insurance company.
Marty asked for suggestions on the proposed wording change. Leslie suggested making the 3rd paragraph of the 2nd section consistent with 1st paragraph of the 1st section.
Ed moved to make the language same in both paragraphs, to read “faculty or staff members will normally be required to pay $500 toward the replacement or repair of the computer.” Seth seconded the motion.
Jim asked if 50% is a reasonable penalty for repeat instances, as it is currently written in the policy. Alan asked if users only have to compensate the college for the loss if they are requesting a new computer. Seth pointed out that the language states that the funds are used “toward replacement of the computer.” Marty agreed that the way the policy is worded, users might not be required to pay if the computer is not replaced.
Ed asked how many computers the college reallocates each year. Marty responded that we reallocate 50-100 computers each year for use as lab equipment, web-mail kiosks, etc.
Alan asked what our policy is if users don’t want to replace their computers. Marty responded that in that case we wouldn’t charge them. Irena mentioned that if the language changes to allow for charges up to full price, then the language in the Repeated Theft section, stating that individuals may be required to pay up to 50% of the total cost, would have to change, too. Marty suggested that all three sections could contain the same language: “will normally be required to pay 50% of the total cost.”
Ethan voiced concern about a penalty that was so high it would inhibit faculty and staff from taking their laptops out of their offices, thereby defeating the purpose of giving them laptops (rather than desktops) in the first place. He suggested that it might be better to specify an amount that is high enough to get someone’s attention but not so high that it will deter people from moving their laptops around.
Karen strongly agreed. She stated that we want to write a realistic policy that we can actually use, rather than one we have to continually make exceptions to (because the penalty is too high). If we intend to charge 50% of the replacement costs of computer, then the policy should contain that, but if we’re not really going to do that it harms the policy overall. Karen argued against the 50% language and in favor of $500.
Seth questioned whether raising the amount really makes it more of a disincentive than $500. David noted that if the policy reads “will normally be required” someone could be asked to pay more as well as less than the $500.
Vicki recommended adding “college funds may not be used for this purpose” to the language. All agreed.
Picking up on Ed’s motion, Marty proposed that we leave the wording in the first section unchanged; alter the wording in the second section, third paragraph and in the third section (Repeated Theft) to read “faculty or staff members will normally be required to pay $500 toward the replacement or repair of the computer;” and to add a note at the bottom of the policy stating that “college funds may not be used for these purposes.” The motion, with wording as amended by Marty, passed unanimously. Molly will update the wording of the policy on the CIS web site.
3. Approval process of computer-projection classrooms (Marty Ringle)
Marty referred the committee to the proposal, provided with the agenda, that the CPC remove itself from the classroom projection request process and asked if there were any questions. Irena asked how many Registrar requests we received last year. Alan replied that he received one, which arrived after the last meeting of the committee for the year. He approved it on behalf of the committee. Karen indicated that four projection rooms were added last summer. Marty indicated that we generally receive one Registrar request per year, usually for 2-4 new projection rooms. Ethan indicated that the timing for the CPC to receive and act on Registrar requests was out of synch with the annual Facilities improvement cycle, thereby causing a raft of problems that make it difficult to implement new projection classrooms in time for the fall semester.
Seth submitted a motion to accept the proposal to remove the CPC from the classroom projection request process. Irena seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
Alan noted that the CPC has a meeting in March and will schedule one in April if there are agenda items. Marty asked for committee members to submit any agenda items for the next meeting to Marty, Alan, or Molly.
The meeting adjourned at 1:50 pm.