I'm sorry I had to run out on the latest CEVAT meeting. In penance,
I thought I might give you some written feed back on your draft
before the next meeting.
I like the general thrust very much. I have some general comments
and some specific questions on parts A and B. I'll get to C some other time.
-> Before we give any specific recommendations centered around
the WWW technology, I think we have to make a statement about
its "staying power". If we didn't believe the web was here to stay,
then these sweeping recommendations would be irresponsible.
How do we know that future developments will not make investments
in the web obsolete? Perhaps the answer to this is trivial -- namely
that any future replacement will straightforwardly incorporate
the present day web. In any case we should say something up front.
-> I think we should think about implementation, management and cost
issues wherever appropriate. I know that we could get completely
bogged down if we took responsibility to plan the implementation of
each of our recommendations, but we would be irresponsible if we
didn't point out some of the critical issues we can forsee along the
path to implementing them. I'll give examples of
these under specific headings.
Using your numbering:
A1 I agree
A2 I agree
Are there others?
B1&2
We have to face some hard questions here. How is this service
to be costed-out? Are we suggesting that IS remove its fee for
a net-drop and its $25/month fee for an IP address? Or is there
some more complicated algorithm? Are we suggesting that
the Institute buy every faculty member a pc or workstation?
If so, how about the faculty who already have them or those who
want a "cadillac" versus those who'll make due with a "chevy"?
Who will maintain and service this system? My own experience
is that ethernet is considerably more tempermental than
the telephone.
What about researh staff like RA's and Principal and Senior
Scientists? These folks actually participate in a lot of educational
development and even teach. Along the same lines,
what about the support staff who interact with faculty -- would my
secretary have to use my desk to put my problem sets and course
notes on the web? LNS, for example, has 400 people on
its network but only 40 are faculty. What about undergraduate
offices, etc.?
We ought to make some statement about relative priorities of wiring
the faculty, the administration, the research staff and the support
staff.
I guess I'm coming to the conclusion that we ought to view network
connection in much the same way as we now view telephone access:
the Institute supplies phone lines to everyone and offers a variety of
levels of service.
B3&4
I think this is a major recommendation which requires a careful
analysis before going ahead. It will cost a lot to put all MIT pubs.
and forms on the net, keep them up-to-date and respond to inquiries.
It's great if MIT is able to eliminate (or significantly downsize) the
present paper based system and save more than the cost of the
electronic replacement.. I think we have to recommend a study of
the economics of this proposal before implementation.
B5 I would go further and suggest a fund set up to provide (say) a month's
summer salary for faculty who want to try develop innovative
uses of the web for educational purposes. Faculty would apply for these
"internal grants" at a level of, say, a 1/2 dozen per year.
B6 [Not on your list] This is Hal's suggestion. Have the Faculty Standing
Committee on the Library System renamed and rechared as a
Committee on the Library and Information Systems with responsibility
for overview and innovation (on a continuing basis) in the areas
we are discussiing.
Bob