Minutes
ITANA Conference Call
March 5, 2009

*Attendees*

Jim Phelps, University of Wisconsin-Madison (chair)
Marina Arseniev, UC Irvine
Tom Barton, University of Chicago
Tom Dopirak, Carnegie Mellon University
Kevin Violette, University of North Carolina - Wilmington
Steve Olshansky, Internet2
Ann West, EDUCAUSE/Internet2
Dean Woodbeck, Internet2 (scribe)

*Action Items*

(AI) Ann West will check to see if the Face2Face registration deadline can be moved to March 20, to allow another ITANA call prior to the deadline.

(AI) Jim Phelps will revised the F2F schedule to accommodate an 8:30 a.m. start time and 5 p.m. finish.

*Agenda*
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Bash
3. Accept minutes of last call
4. Attendance update, registration details
5. APRIL FACE2FACE Planning Session Finalize Agenda - All

  1. See: https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/itana/Face2Face+Meetings
  2. Finalize morning session descriptions
  3. Timing of sessions
  4. Pre-planning the afternoon
    1. What do you think? Session (Show and get feedback)
    2. Working Groups
    3. Hot Topics

*April Face2Face Planning*

The registration deadline for the April 29-30 F2F is March 16. That date was chosen so that, should the meeting need to be cancelled, there are no hotel charges incurred. There are seven registered so far. There was a discussion concerning whether the date could be moved to March 20, to allow for another ITANA call prior to the date. Ann West will check on that.

The meeting immediately follows the Internet2 Spring Member Meeting in Arlington, Virginia. There is a $235 registration fee for the ITANA sessions. Online registration is at:http://events.internet2.edu/2009/spring-mm/registrationintro.html.

The most up-to-date Information about the schedule, and session details, is available on the ITANA wiki: https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/itana/Face2Face+Meetings

Jim will send a note to the ITANA list emphasizing the need to register prior to the deadline.

*F2F Agenda*

Jim updated the agenda on the wiki, to incorporate the suggestions made on the last call. It was suggested to move the start time to 8:30, to accommodate those from western time zones. Jim will do that and adjust the schedule accordingly to still finish at 5 p.m.

The agenda includes blocks of time for a presentation on a specific topic, followed by a working session on that same topic. Presenters can take less time for their presentations if they prefer to leave more time for the working session. Presenters are asked to have a good idea of what they would like to see accomplished in the working sessions.

Jim also asked that each session topic leader think about getting session helpers/co-presenters lined up. Also, that ITANA members contact other they know who might like to attend the F2F.
There was a discussion about the 5/10 sessions. The concept is to have a person talk for no longer that five minutes on a problem or project that they need help on, then get 10 minutes of feedback. The Hot Topics, on the other hand, would be items that are unforeseen or come up in conversation during the F2F.

The group brainstormed some items that might be appropriate for 5/10 or hot topics
• enterprise feed management
• Zachman framework
• Web services performance
• Meeting your security objectives

*Other ITANA Topics*

Tom Dopirak is interested in documentation about the role of EA at an institution. He has some information that he will send to the list.

Jim Phelps sent a link to the University of Wisconsin's new architecture wiki for feedback.
The wiki is here: https://wiki.doit.wisc.edu/confluence/display/ARCH/Home

There was a general discussion about any experience with using outside consultants for architecture and the best way to work with external consultants. Rather than looking at the entire architecture, consultants typically are hired for a project (say, an implementation of PeopleSoft). This led to a discussion about methods for ensuring that architecture requirements are included in RFPs - not just business requirements.

Tom Barton discussed a system at Chicago that uses open-ended questionnaires. One document informs vendors of the small number of non-negotiable security considerations for operating within the university. Vendors then fill out a security questionnaire, which is used to develop specifications and ensures that vendors and staff understand the scope and limitations of the project. The wiki is at:https://wiki.uchicago.edu/display/integration/Enterprise+Security+Architecture

*Next Call, Thursday, March 19, 2009, 2 p.m. EDT*

  • No labels