Meeting : Directors of Computing Services of Russell Group Institutions

18th May 2011

University College London
Room 433
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences
16 Taviton Street
London

  1. Introductions and apologies
  2. Arthur Spirling (Imperial) – deputy attended
  3. Tim Phillips (Bristol) - deputy attended
  4. Eileen Brandreth (Cardiff) – deputy attended
    Full list of attendees attached as appendix
  5. Minutes from last meeting
    Minutes from previous meeting were unavailable and were to be circulated for comment and approval at the next meeting

RUGIT Executive:
February 17 2011 / Postholder
Chair / Paul Harness, Manchester
Vice-Chair / Sean Duffy, Birmingham
Secretary / Mike Roberts, Warwick
Treasurer / Steve Williams, Newcastle
Member without portfolio / Mike Cope, UCL
Member without portfolio / Alison Clarke, Nottingham
  1. Matters arising – confirmation of Executive roles/members
  2. RUGIT business
  3. Attendees at RUGIT meeting
    It was agreed that RUGIT should be attended by one representative of each institution – normally the Director (or equivalent role). When the Director is not available one Deputy may attend.
    The institution hosting the meeting is allowed two attendees.
    Exceptions can always be considered – requests to the Chair and organized through the Secretary.
    Guest attendees should be agreed with the Chair – and organized through the secretary.
    The meeting would be organized to allow at least one ‘closed’ session – with RUGIT members only in attendance.
    One e-mail list would be maintained, including Directors, Deputies, representatives from associated third parties (e.g. Janet, Russell Group)
    The e-mail listing would be amended to clearly show the relationship to RUGIT of the individual.
    Amendments to the e-mail list should be requested through the Secretary.
    Members were reminded not to use the full/open list for sensitive communications
  4. Website - (Proposal previously circulated)
    Steve Williams proposed moving management of the site to Newcastle – to allow an update and on going maintenance. Proposal accepted.
  5. Sub-Group updates
  6. Update from Paul Kennedy on Security Group
    An update on the activities of the Security Group was received from Paul Kennedy (Nottingham).
    Slides were presented (circulated to members); there was a request for a representative from Queens (Belfast) to be confirmed.
    Discussion followed. It was agreed that one role of the sub-group would be to send ‘alerts’ to RUGIT on hot topic areas (through update reports – see later item). The Group also requested RUGIT to inform them of any specific areas they would like investigation. The Group were informed that funding could be made available for larger initiatives of interest to RUGIT
  7. Review of other sub-groups; confirmation on lead contacts; proposal for reporting
    Sean Duffy (Birmingham) proposed a simple reporting pro-forma to be completed by each sub-Group prior to each RUGIT meeting. One group would be invited to present an update at each meeting.
    Proposal agreed. Pro-forma circulated. A second group to be invited to next meeting – presentation from the Quality Management sub-group suggested.
    Confirmation of current sub-groups :
    - Security : Paul Kennedy
    - Project Management : Ian Quinnell (also includes non-RUGIT members)
    - Quality Management : Yvonne O’Byrne
  8. Key Issues
    Overview document circulated prior to meeting.
    Main issue discussed for this meeting : Governance – (led by Steve Williams, Newcastle)
    Steve led an engaging discussion, staring with description of current activities in Newcastle. Wider discussion revealed : value-for-money concerns driving topicality; others sited a desire to check ‘the right amount of investment’, the right balance between commodity and value-add; questions around fixed or flexible budget, i.e. “do anything you like as long as budget is not exceeded”; shift in perception that the most important apps are now web/portal/e-mail rather than (or in addition to) the traditional SAP/SITS/payroll etc; interest in local versus central delivery and organization; centralization gives visibility (and therefore vulnerability) to a large budget, rather than lots of smaller, invisible, budgets; agreed that shared knowledge/learning of different models across the group would be useful; proposals agreed ..
    - Steve W to post a list (on new website) of “Common questions asked during reviews – and model answers”
    - Create a place for institutions to post up their governance/structural models – as a reference for others to use
  9. Lead item for UMF item 7 – considerations for shared services – introduction from Mike Cope, UCL
    Mike Cope (UCL) led a conversation outlining an interest in UCL to visit the idea of a shared service data centre capability; Mike outlined some key issues and concepts and asked for expressions of interest from institutions wishing to explore the idea of a shared facility (of some kind).
    Mike Cope to contact interested parties.
  10. The University Modernisation Fund
    Introduction and overview : John Milner, JISC
    Example project : UKRDS, Jean Sykes (LSE) and Kevin Ashley (Edinburgh)
    Intro from Jean refresh of UKRDS pilot project with RLUK; towards end of 2 year activity, joined with complementary work being done by JISC – MRD project; last summer activity passed over to JISC;
    John Milner intro to UMF, presented materials and invited questions
    Members asked about Janet track record on running DCs – response ‘build on existing, working structures and apply to a different technology;
    Question around governance of Janet brokering capacity from around the sector (ie. They will sell on spare capacity)? One is emerging; possibly look at negotiating with commercial providers on behalf of the sector; funders are beginning to require data management plans; Kevin Ashley introduced DCC aspect; take-up of service may be driven by citation or cost benefits; a number of comments were made around the ‘future’ view of services and questions about how realistic it would be to persuade/compel researchers to use such a service.
    Both areas were of interest to the group and the item served as a good introduction. Chair asked for time to consider the best way for RUGIT to engage.
    Action : Proposal from RUGIT to JISC/Janet on engagement model; materials to be circulated and institutions to express interest in pursuing to Chair
  11. Update from Janet - Bob Day
    Bob Day (CTO Janet) introduced a session looking at a revision of a number of Janet operating principles; Janet is here to help with wider mission – community engagement, business development; “Business and Community Engagement” linkage is allowed across Janet service; can also connect to a third party from our facilities; supporting documents are pending – eligibility policy, AUP, State Aid guidance all being revised and will be made available; potential problem areas – regional network operator using sponsored connections (will be addressed through consultation exercise prior to revocation); general feeling that some kind of subscription/usage charging model must emerge in the next 2-3 years
  12. Oracle away day - (Proposal and invitations for expressions of interest)
    Interested parties to contact Mike Cope (UCL)
  13. Open questions - (Simple ‘show of hands’ questions – no discussion)
    There were none
  14. A.O.B
    None raised
  15. Date of next meeting : 5th September 2011, venue to be confirmed

Attachment 1

RUGIT Executive membership

RUGIT Executive:
February 17 2011 / Postholder
Chair / Paul Harness, Manchester
Vice-Chair / Sean Duffy, Birmingham
Secretary / Mike Roberts, Warwick
Treasurer / Steve Williams, Newcastle
Member without portfolio / Mike Cope, UCL
Member without portfolio / Alison Clarke, Nottingham

Attachment 2

Proposal for RUGIT attendees and e-mail lists

A number of colleagues have asked about the use of mail lists, attendees/deputies and confidentiality of items. The following is offered as a discussion item to clarify arrangements :

It is proposed that the following operating principles are adopted :

  • The RUGIT meeting is a convenient forum for an informal interest group.
  • For reasons of practicality it is proposed that where Directors/CIO’s cannot attend then a Deputy will be allowed to attend in their place.
  • For ease of communication one e-mail list will be maintained – use of the e-mail list is open to RUGIT attendees (or their PAs or Deputies).
  • Members should request additions/deletions to the list through the Secretary.
  • Members should consider the e-mail list and any meeting as ‘open’ – that is, unsuitable for confidential or sensitive material where onward communication would be inappropriate. This, of course, is merely a recognition of the nature of modern communications channels, not a reflection on the integrity of members.
  • Open, persistent invitations will be extended to representatives of third parties as guests – this list being reviewed occasionally by members. The current list includes :
  • Representative from Russell Group
  • Representative from Janet UK
    Representatives of these parties will be asked to attend only those items relevant to their presentation
  • Guest attendance can be requested/arranged through the Secretary – inclusion of any item on the agenda will be decided by the Executive.
  • Examples : updates from sub-groups; vendor presentations; representatives from institutions outside of the Russell group