Skip to Content

Campus Calendaring Work Group Meeting 8/17/2011

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date and Time: 
August 17, 2011 - 9:00am - 11:00am

Campus Calendaring Work Group Meeting 8-17-2011

1. UC Santa Cruz
- Review the comments and lessons learned from UC Santa Cruz's decision to move faculty and staff to Google Aps.

2. Loose Ends
- Review the justification for eliminating locally provided Exchange and Zimbra as options for our recommendation.

3. E'Discovery and Data Retention Issues/Features
- We can review/discuss the feature available in Google Aps and Office 365.

- Discuss our requirements for data recovery (of deleted items and purged items).

- Jamie can report on his meeting with Meta to review the data retention and e'discovery features of Google Aps and Office 365 and will share Meta's input/comments.

4. Deliberations
- Each Work Group participant was to prepare a set of pros and cons for Google Aps and Office 365.  They were also to create the over-arching criteria (values) represented by their specific pros and cons.

5. Other Items?


Campus Calendaring Work Group
August 17, 2011

Alan Moses
Andy Satomi
Bill Doering
Bruce Miller
Chris Sneathen
Jamie Sonsini
Jason Simpson
Kip Bates
Matthew Dunham
Randall Ehren
Ted Cabeen
Thomas Howard

Not Present
Daniel Lloyd
Doug Drury
Jim Woods
Nathan Walter
Polly Bustillos
Richard Kip

UC Santa Cruz
Jamie reported on further discussion and details from UC Santa Cruz (Janine Roeth).  Specifically, UCSC is not now contemplating the purchase of Google’s Message Discovery service/feature as part of their role out of this product on campus.  They will, of course, discuss data retention options with their campus steering committee for this service and adjust if necessary.

Loose Ends
We discussed the latest draft document which expressed our justification for focusing on our outsource vendor (Software as a Service – SaaS) solutions.

It was suggested that we add language that explained our preference was for a SaaS provider that offered all aspects of the service and not for a vendor that just hosted software that was created (and supported) by a different vendor.  Jamie offered to create language, insert that into our document and then share with everyone.  Once this is complete he was going to post the final version on our IT.UCSB.EDU web page.

E'Discovery and Data Retention Issues/Features
Jamie reported on his meeting with Meta Clow to review both Google and Office 365 data retention and e’discovery features.  Meta’s preference was for the Office 365 product since the data management features applied to all data types (email, calendar data, tasks and contacts), she felt that it would be easier to train end-users in that environment (once folks knew how to manage one data type, they could manage any data type) and she particularly liked the data retention features that came (at no cost) with the base product.

We went over the data retention (and item recovery) features of Google and Office 365.  It is still not clear that we fully understand each of these offerings and Jamie will pursue further.

It was decided that we’d “go around the room” and have each Work Group member present their “Pros and Cons”.  We got as far as about 2.5 members.  Certainly this discussion will continue.

A variety of topics were explored as we begin working to consolidate our thinking.

We discussed the fact that various enhanced features beyond email and ecalendaring would impact the quantity of Tier 2 support required.  As segments of the campus elect to use these collaboration features (in Google it might be Docs, in Office 365 it could be Lync) whoever provides Tier 2 support would need to expand their expertise to cover these products.  Although we recognize this impact, it was noted that the set of enhanced/extra features (even from within the Office 365 environment) was limited to only a few additional services.  And, that although support for these services might initially be for only a small portion of the campus, it could grow and be useful for a larger segment of the campus eventually.  As we craft the support portion of our final report, we all agreed that we’d need to include reference to this eventuality.

Other Items
Jamie wrote (the day of our last meeting) to Steven Benedict and asked for an update on the UC negotiations with Microsoft regarding Office 365.  Jamie hasn’t heard back yet.

Jamie also reported that traffic on the CorporateTime listserver list indicated that there were several vendors who apparently are able to migrate CorporateTime (aka “Oracle Calendar”) data to the Google Calendar or Exchange environments and that these migrations retain the associations for invitees.