Meeting notes, 12/3

From: Tom Holub (tom@LS.Berkeley.EDU)
Date: Tue Dec 04 2001 - 17:56:30 PST

  • Next message: Michael Sinatra: "Re: Meeting notes, 12/3"

    We welcomed two new participants: Jann Fong (sitting in for Lucia Tsai) and
    Jacqueline Craig (AVCO). We had a long discussion of college basketball
    arenas (Haas is still way better than Maples, but not as good as Harmon
    was, and they're all better than the Mausoleum), and then started giving
    Jacqueline and Jann some background on the discussions we've had so far.

    (I'm getting tired of typing "Jacqueline", so she's "JC" from here out).

    JC wanted to know if we are planning to pre-assign addresses to students
    (Yes). firstname_lastname (or firstname.lastname, preferred by Jann) is in
    conflict with the UC policy on privacy--having an obvious naming scheme is
    equivalent to publishing someone's address. We don't have to auto-generate
    addresses for people who have opted-out of displaying their address (Tom).
    And we don't have to use firstname_lastname--in fact we were leaning away
    from it anyway. Haas faculty hate using the shift key (Zane). Non-obvious
    schemes, like th123, don't have the policy problem. This is probably the
    last nail in the coffin of firstname_lastname.

    CalNet will have a friendly-name option rolling out in February. Jann
    will send us a document with some of the issues they dealt with in
    deciding on their scheme. They are using personal choice with some
    concessions to the uclink/socrates address space.

    The undergrad division is looking at a way to send mail to incoming
    students. JC suggested we contact Tim Heidinger and see if he is
    interested in participating; I will do that.

    If people can choose logins, we can't protect them from themselves (JC). If
    someone wants hotbitch@Berkeley.EDU, it's theirs. On the other hand, if
    someone wants to point hotbitch@Berkeley.EDU at JC's mailbox, they will be
    squashed via the Electronic Communications Policy.

    JC notes we may have to put forth multiple options that others can decide
    on. Jack can't just say "we are doing this". Who decides? The ITAC,
    perhaps. I think the ITAC is reasonably likely to endorse whatever
    proposal we come up with--all the major players are represented on BEEF. We
    should come up with a recommendation, and list some of the reasons we
    discarded other options (Tom).

    Our next meeting is 10:00 AM on Tuesday, December 11th, where we will
    attempt to make decisions about some of the conflicting goals.

    -- 
    Tom Holub
    (tom_holub@LS.Berkeley.EDU, 510-642-9069) 
    Director of Computing, College of Letters & Science 
    249 Campbell Hall 
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 04 2001 - 17:56:32 PST