Skip to Content

Campus Calendaring Work Group Meeting 10/5/2011

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date and Time: 
October 5, 2011 - 9:00am - 11:00am

Campus Calendaring Work Group Meeting

October 5, 2011

  1. Update on cross-calendaring with Google (cloud service)
  2. Governance Committee (Doug)
  3. Shelving talk about costs until Berkeley negotiations are finalized
  4. Service Costs
  5. Enabling features but not supporting them
  6. Other (spontaneously generated) items
  7. 3 Days away from celebrating 30 days of uptime with O365



Campus Calendaring Work Group
October 5, 2011

Andy Satomi
Bill Koseluk (representing Alan Moses)
Bruce Miller
Chris Sneathen
Jamie Sonsini
Jason Simpson
Jim Woods
Matthew Dunham
Nathan Walter
Polly Bustillos
Randall Ehren
Thomas Howard

Not Present
Alan Moses
Bill Doering
Daniel Lloyd
Doug Drury
Kip Bates
Richard Kip
Ted Cabeen

Update on cross-calendaring with Google (cloud service)
Randall reported that Google was going to provide him a demonstration of their cross-calendaring services later this week.  Randall will share what he learns.

We agreed that a single statement should be made regarding the service support (“best effort”) for cross calendaring with all other calendaring products.  Specific mention should be made regarding locally hosted Exchange and Google Apps for Education.  We also discussed having the service organization receive guidance regarding their cross-calendaring support from the governance committee.  This guidance may help to determine or direct the effort given to outlier situations.  Jamie was volunteered to craft this text for inclusion in our report.

Additional Report Items
Governance Committee
Matt volunteered to draft a paragraph which describes the Governance Committee we envision.  During our discussion it was suggested that the Governance Committee membership be determined by asking each of the campus “Control Points” to recommend a participant.

Service Costs
We are waiting for information regarding the license agreement with UC Berkeley which should be helpful in determining our license cost options.

Jamie and Randall will work up a basic structure for staff expenses (salary plus overhead).  There was some discussion regarding the dollar amount we’d use for each of the positions in our service support group.  The mid-point of the salary ranges was discussed as was the mid-point of current employees in different CNT categories.

We discussed in a bit of detail that as efforts expand to support various collaboration features, there will be an increase in cost of the service.

Campus Implementation Group (now the “Technical Coordination Group”)
After some discussion we decided to rename this group to be the “Technical Coordination” group.

Randall gave a description of this group.  He thought that the group would include one representative from each department using the service and that each person would:

Be the technical point of contact for their department/organization.

Be the only source of requests for technical assistance from their department to the service provider.

May have administrative rights to assist with (or completely) manage the department accounts.

Be responsible for Tier 1 (end-user) support within their organization.

Enabling Features But Not Supporting Them
Randall brought up the topic of which features we would initially expose for end-users to use.  After quite a bit of discussion we decided that a phased roll-out made most sense.  This may, however, introduce staffing changes (need for more staff support) as the additional product features are exposed (and supported) for use.

Our Report
Jamie asked if folks had read the latest version (Draft #2) of our report.  Unfortunately not many had read that document.  Jamie asked that folks particularly focus on the Recommendation section so as to be sure that the language he’s using does reflect the group’s thinking.