Skip to Content

Campus Calendaring Work Group Meeting 6/29/2011

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date and Time: 
June 29, 2011 - 9:00am - 11:00am
SAASB 4101Ww

1. The Locally Hosted Exchange evaluation group will present any new information gathered since our last meeting and in response to the additional issues or questions raised.

2. The Zimbra evaluation group will start their presentation.

3. Other items.


Campus Calendaring Work Group
June 29, 2011

Alan Moses
Andy Satomi
Bruce Miller
Doug Drury
Jamie Sonsini
Matthew Dunham
Nathan Walter
Polly Bustillos
Randall Ehren
Ted Cabeen
Thomas Howard
Jim Woods

Not Present
Bill Doering
Chris Sneathen
Daniel Lloyd
Jason Simpson
Kip Bates
Richard Kip

MS Exchange – Locally Hosted
Bruce discussed some of the additional information and changes made to the MS Exchange – Locally Hosted group evaluation document.

Next Steps – Gaining Input from Others on Campus
Jamie asked that, since some members of our committee needed to leave early, we discuss how we would handle gaining input or guidance from the various other constituencies we’d planned to contact.  Specifically, he asked about how to gain input from folks responsible for E’Discovery at UCSB, those responsible for control point finances and various MSO/Business Officers who would represent the functional offices who would use the product we’d recommend (and may have use cases we are not familiar with).

After some discussion, we decided that input/guidance from the financial folks would be best placed later in our process after we had narrowed our selection and made several other decisions (including those related to support).

We discussed seeking input from the Academic Senate, which would/could represent Faculty, but decided that since faculty are not, generally, on campus at this time and are represented in the Operational Effectiveness effort and also on the IT Board, we’d leave it to those committees to coordinate with the Senate.

We thought that input from the E’Discovery and the “Functional” representatives would be helpful as we moved through what would now become a set of more “horizontal discussions” focused on comparing/contrasting the productions relative to specific areas, features, or topics.  Jamie is going to prepare, then share with the group, a set of questions to be asked of each group.  Once those questions have been vetted, he’ll distribute them to those from whom we’d like input.  We will also invite these “advisors” to attend a meeting to discuss their area of expertise in more detail (if they’d like).

Ted presented the Zimbra production evaluation group’s report.  He had shared that report, via email, the previous day.  A few questions were asked and then added to be further researched and reported back to the group at our next meeting.

Outsourced Options
Matt brought up the topic of “locally hosted” vs “outsourced” options now that we’ve heard from each of the product evaluation groups.  We took a “straw vote” and at this time and after hearing the initial production evaluation group reports, all members present were inclined to select or recommend one of our two outsourced solutions.

We discussed how we might assess “the campus’s” inclination towards an outsourced solution (or not).  After lots of discussion we settled on the idea that we would not need to communicate with the Academic Senate (see notes above) but only with the Operational Effectiveness committee (which is now the Steering committee for that group since the iTOE has been disbanded) and the IT Board.

Jamie mentioned that the last time we had this discussion and planned to ask about this option, Tom Putnam recommended we bring up this question along with a recommendation (so that we’d have a concrete set of answers to any questions).  Jamie will speak with Tom again, now that we are at a different point in the process and could provide answers to most (I hope) questions regarding outsourced options.

Jamie will prepare a set of notes which describes our situation and status which (after being reviewed by the group) will be shared with the Operational Effectiveness Steering Committee (via Doug Drury) and the IT Board (we discussed having Jamie share with this group).

Other Topics
Since Lopaka Delp is no longer at UCSB, we are looking for another member of the Office 365 evaluation group to serve as the “point person” for that group.  Jamie will send email asking someone to volunteer.