Skip to Content

ITC Meeting Notes - 2015-05-21

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

Date and Time: May 21, 2015 10:00 - 11:00am
Location:  Cheadle 5123


  • Denise Stephens, Chair
  • Cindy Bumgarner, Director, Summer Sessions
  • Linda Flegal, Assistant Dean, Mathematical, Life & Physical Sciences
  • Jacob Godfrey, Assoc. Director & Chief Procurement Officer, Business & Financial Services
  • Alan Grosenheider, Associate University Librarian, Library
  • Carl Guitierrez-Jones, Acting Dean of Undergraduate Education
  • Chuck Haines, Director, Capital Development, Budget & Planning
  • Karen Hanson, Asst. Vice Chancellor for Research, Office of Research
  • Alan Liu, Professor, English Department
  • Mary Lum, Assistant Dean, College of Letters & Science
  • Michael Miller, Director, Office of Financial Aid & Scholarships
  • Jeffrey Monteleone, Assoc. Director, Operational Work Systems, Facilities Management
  • Alex Parraga, Chief Digital Officer, News and Communications
  • Lisa Sedgwick, Executive Director for Academic Affairs, Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor
  • Timothy Sherwood, Associate Professor, Computer Science
  • Robert Sislbee, Planning & Resources Director, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Admin Services
  • Christian Villasenor, Assistant Dean, Graduate Division
  • Kirk Grier, Director, Infrastructure, ETS, Ex-Officio
  • Sam Horowitz, Chief Information Security Officer, ETS, Ex-Officio
  • Manuel Cintron, Director, Enterprise End User Computing, ETS
  • Elise Meyer, Director Business Operations & Planning, ETS

This ITC Meeting had Quorum.

The meeting focused on the Connect Project.  There is an urgent need to confirm the direction and a need to prepare for the big project that will be presented to the ITC in the future.

Manny Cintron presented this powerpoint.

The Connect Project Strategy is to first “Fix” the problems encountered during implementation of Phase 1, and then to submit a Project Proposal for implementing Phase 2.

The following would be accomplished with the Fix:

1. Move Connect Office365 customers to a single cloud service on Google Apps for Education (GAFE)

2. Move Oracle Calendar customers onto the same cloud service

This would eliminate our current risk of using an ancient calendar system, which is hanging by thread, and difficult to support.  When problems come up we need to develop the solutions - the vendor isn’t.  We want the transition to be at our schedule rather than in response to a catastrophic failure

3. Implement cross-calendaring with Student Affairs.

ETS needs approval ASAP to start the implementing the Fix by 6/1 in order to do an email migration for 26 departments over 10 weeks during the summer.  There is lots of pre-planning that must be done.

Office365 Email migration 6/1 - 8/17

  • Migrations will occur Monday, Tuesday & Thursday evenings.  There will be a blackout from that evening to the next morning.  
  • Customers will need to reconfigure their email client from connecting to Office365 to connecting to Google Apps for Education.  

Oracle Calendar migration 7/3 - 9/10

  • We will be contracting with Appirio for the calendar migration.  They will need 6-8 weeks to prepare for the migration.
  • Admin Svcs Oracle Calendar customers will be migrated to GAFE, ARIT email will happen later.

Implement Cross-Calendaring with Student Affairs ? - 10/8

The costs for implementing the fix are greatly reduced from the original presentation due to a planned federated arrangement with LSIT.  With collaboration we can avoid $400K.

Discussion of issues related to moving to Google:

  • What is the impact on individual users?  -Windows Outlook users will use GASMO.  There will be some features not available in Outlook, but they can be done on the web, e.g., out of office notifications, and there will be some features that work differently e.g., labels. There is more functionality with GAFE.
  • What training will be offered? -Do a survey within your organization to determine who has Gmail experience - this minimizes the impact of cutover.  If you do survey and you have concerns we'll do presentations for your department.  Additionally, has some classes (NB: search for Gmail or google calendar).
  • You can keep department name, but you have the option to just use
  • You can still archiving email, but there are no limits on email storage.
  • Chat & Drive will be available.
  • We are following the Berkeley approach so that our data is on-shore.
  • Umail is not part of the Fix.  It will be the latter part of Phase 2 or Phase 3.
  • There was discussion of how to best address faculty concerns about Google.  Suggestions included developing a document to socialize the issues, involving Academic Senate Chair Kum-Kum Bhavnani, holding town forums similar to what was done for the UC Commission on the Future, and meeting with concerned individuals one-on-one.

Discussion of the Project:

  • It is important to include end user experience in the measure of success.  -Tier 3 can check your space to see if there any issues or errors after migration. Tier 1 & Tier 2 can remotely check on backend and frontend.  We’re doing small migrations to test our process.  We can report results to any department, and report back to ITC.  Have post-migration meeting with the department to learn from process.   We can summarize department migration results and make available.  Have plan online and include comments from department migrations in same document.  Transparency will take us far.  
  • Phase 2 migrations are departments that are not part of Phase 1.  e.g., LSIT, COE, and ARIT etc, What about other departments that run their own email -Yes, they can become part of Phase 3 e.g., GGSE.
  • Is this opt-in? -Yes.  We have been talking with departments and they are very interested.  We can't require departments to use it.  We are aiming for more adoption.  The Library needs to move.  Other departments are going to move.

There was a full and frank discussion about the process to move forward:

  • If “the Fix” is a service correction, does it require the project review process developed at the March ITC meeting?
    • If this was a formal proposal, then one would look for answers to questions like:
      • do we have resources (e.g., key personnel, finances),
      • is there a set of well defined metrics by which we can judge success,
      • project plan etc?
    • Concern w/Oracle Calendar.  We reached out to our existing 26 customer departments.  We have an architecture that if it died today, we may not be able to fix it.  This is to fix what Phase 1 was supposed to deliver back in Fall 2013.
    • Additionally, the work of the Fix is to prepare for the full plan coming.
  • Can we endorse “the Fix” without endorsing the long-term project or deciding between Office365 or Google or a hybrid?
    • Manny made a long presentation in February
    • There was a question of what platform to use.  This group still has not reviewed a proposal nor decided on O365 vs. Google or a hybrid.
    • We have the difficulty of a tactical issue resolving problems that we need to move, but don't want to endorse a bigger direction than has been presented to us.
    • Last meeting we discussed voting process, should we follow that.  This is not quite a project, but it is project-like.
    • This fix does commit us to a path.  That the Fix weights one path going forward doesn't necessary mean the final direction is the same, this campus does 180s.  It is like deferred maintenance.
    • This pre-ordains direction, which means why review further.
  • Should we stay neutral or delay addressing this issue at this time?
    • We need to be confident that this group agrees with this direction.  How move ahead and get out of a precarious situation.  It will take us just through October to implement The Fix.

In the end, a majority voted in favor of “The ITC endorses the Fix, without endorsing the long term project, although we recognize that this does add weight to the long-term outcome”

The ITC will vote in June about a long-term commitment to Google. (NB: the Phase 2 Connect Project Proposal is still under development, and unfortunately will not be ready for discussion at the 6/12 ITC meeting.)

Connect-Phase-I.pdf254.07 KB