Child pages
  • CTG Meeting 2013-01-25
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


  • 11:00: Welcome, check-in
  • 11:10: Discussion about standing regental order on indemnification and potential UC task force involving CTG. (If you cannot make the call and want to participate in a potential task force, please contact
  • 11:30: Discussion about and possible CTG project to adopt the registry of collaborative tools used across UC.
  • 11:45: News, updates and ideas from the members


The most interesting development is the possibility of the CTG becoming involved in helping UC legal and risk management update the standing Regents order on indemnification ( 100.4.dd - ).  Many cloud services are provided a low- or no-cost, and offer benefits to the University, while offering click-through agreements, or boilerplate agreements which contain often quite non-negotiable language.  In many cases, from a business perspective, the risk entailed by entering into agreements like this can be mitigated elsewhere - or not using some such services may in fact increase other risks or costs.  The enforcement and interpretation of these rules is delegated to the campuses, to someone in a risk management role.  While exceptions can be made in limited cases, these don't entirely fix the problem.  
I'm hoping we can have some initial discussion to frame the issues, from the CTG point of view, and identify people interested in working on possible amendment to the Regents order (which will not be a quick thing).  Our role will be to help frame the uses and benefits of services affected by the order, and identify possible risks, as well as situations when UC should push back on vendors or demand more accountability. I believe this work can be taken on by the Collaborative Suites working group, once the ITLC, UC Legal and Risk management have kicked off their task force.

Notes and Outcomes from discussion:

There was a fairly robust discussion about the Regents' order, as well as discussion around the many other concerns campuses should have around launch of cloud services. (The rule is not the only barrier to adoption of cloud services - Stephen Benedict noted that there are many concerns around privacy and security for example which must be considered.  Some people asked for examples of liabilities introduced with third-party indemnification, and it's clear the work of the UC task force will need to clearly frame the issues, risks and concerns for a lay audience. Many campuses are doing things now that violate the order, and if the answer (in the case of the Regents' order is simply "no", then users will adopt even less secure services, with risk off the balance sheet and unmeasured.  Discussion also on the drivers for the topic - "why CTG?".  The CTG is ahead of the game as the task force has not been identified, but this discussion was to frame issues and prep the group as it's expected we will be asked to help participate in a legal/risk management task force.

Action Items:
  • CTG, now briefed at a high level, will await the formation of the task force, and are ready to provide input and expertise on collaborative tools
  • Bill, Patrick and Caryn will discuss ITLC cloud strategy idea, and pursue further elaboration and discussion with Andrew for input to ITLC
  • Bill will solicit representatives interested in shaping the evolution of Regents' order 100.4.dd(9)

We had some discussion last time about an initial registry of collaborative tools done during the last UCCSC conference.  I'm hoping to identify if there is interest in the CTG picking this up and adopting the registry, and also I'm offering up a website developed at Berkeley as a possible home for the registry.  If resources or interest do not allow, perhaps a simple set of pages on our wiki could serve the function.  In my review of the list from UCCSC it seems pretty unwieldy, so we would need to do some work to simplify and categorize some of the information.  Patrick McGrath (the chair of the Collaborative Application Suites subcommittee) has done some preliminary work at Berkeley with his team to provide some similar matrix of utility of different collaborative tools, and he can't be here today due to a conflict, but I'm looking forward to his involvement in the ongoing discussion):   A site that might also be adapted for use is:

Notes and Outcomes from discussion:

Good points raised on keeping this simple, avoiding issues of trust and perception.  ITLC is interested in getting a better picture of how collaborative tools are used and what they are. Also ITLC interested in what contracts exist on what campuses - who is in-process of negotiating and who is rolling out a collaborative tool.  People on campuses very interested in "how do I do X?" resource for knowledge sharing.  Rose raised the idea about identifying top tools and providing quarterly or similar programs of webcasts with people presenting on the use of the technology on a campus. (Kind of like a "Realtime UCCSC").  The lists themselves become too deep and require a lot of additional research for value - we need to keep it simple and help people discover and share information on the use of tools.

Action Items:

  • Bill and Caryn will discuss, and solicit volunteers or nominations from membership to help
  • We will charge a small group to launch a Google form or similar to collect information, and then have that group work to create some simple, clear mechanisms for sharing information
  • If the ITLC or the workgroup is interested, they are free to use the code and toolsets from UC Berkeley.


  • No labels