ITAC Meeting Minutes

Monday, January 14, 2002     --     ITAC travels to Nevada District Office

Tuesday, January 15, 2002
Time	Agenda Item
8:00AM	Welcome and Introductions Introductions (All Members) -- Mike Strobel welcomed ITAC members to the Nevada District. The Nevada District Chief, Terry Rees, was in attending the Bureau roll-out in Las Vegas. Mike Slifer introduced the new ITAC members and the existing ITAC members introduced themselves and noted their constituents. ITAC Membership -- The rotation of outgoing ITAC members was noted: The following ITAC members are rotating off this year: Barry Hill Data Chief resigned due to district commitments Gary Mahon Studies Chief Term ends 8/01 Greg Shank DBA Term ends 12/01 Scott McEwen RCS Term ends 11/01 The following ITAC members selected by the Regional Hydrologists have at least another year in their term: Mike Slifer District Chief (CR) Grady Moore District Chief (NR) Loren Kloft System Administrator (NR) Nelson Williams World Wide Web Development (SR) Pat Vallance Administrative Officer (WR) ITAC strives to balance its membership among the Regions so as to not impact any one Region. Rather than nominate someone for each vacancy from each Region and then have to decide among the nominees, the following ITAC representation by each Region was decided: Data Section Chief SR Studies Section Chief CR Database Administrator WR Regional Computer Specialist NR Current status of ITAC membership rotations include the following: Bill Carswell is a departing ITAC member. Bill is accepting an assignment to become a member of the NWIS Executive Steering Committee (ESC). No Senior Staff representative Replacement:  WRD Senior Staff Decision. Jessica Alvarez is replacing Scott McEwen as Regional Computer Specialist representative. Sonya Jones, Texas District is replacing Gary Mahon as the Studies Chief representative. Joel Johnson, California District is replacing Greg Shank as the Data Base representative. Brian McCallum, Georgia District is replacing Barry Hill as the Data Chief representative. Isabelle Halley, Greg Allord, Leo House, and Joel Johnson are unable to attend this meeting. Related Documentation:   /cpac/members.html
8:10 AM	Expectations and Concerns for this ITAC Meeting -- ITAC members discussed their expectations and concerns for this meeting, as follows: { insert expectations and concerns here }
8:20 AM	Review Agenda and Goals for Meeting Expected Outcomes:   Mike Slifer review the agenda and goals for this meeting and amend accordingly. Related Documentation:
8:30 AM	Active Directory (ADS)/Lighthouse Project -- Reference Garry's PowerPoint presentation (or pdf format). Brief Background and Status of Lighthouse Project: Garry Neverdon presented the background and Status of the Active Directory Lighthouse Project and issues. Under the Lighthouse Project, Microsoft, Compaq, and the Bureau worked together to provide the implementation plans and testing for Active Directory. The Active Directory production servers purchased so far are Dell servers. The test servers were Compaq servers. The debate is centering around the Active Directory centralization issue. BLM, USDA, NIH are implementing Active Directory. Microsoft support demise of NT 4.0 Available Active Directory Options for WRD Join the Bureau implementation of AD. Join with NMD and support AD with existing staff WRD AD with support from existing staff Do nothing (not recommended) Frank Sager presented information on Windows 2000 Active Directory (or (pdf format)) Sam Martinez (NT TAC lead, and one of the WRD reps on the Lighthouse Team) gave a presentation on USGS Active Directory Structure sharing information on the following topics: Proposed ADS deployment strategy timelines Issues concerning ADS Domain Controller placement { insert Sam Martinez's ppt here } Benefits to the SA and the user communities Related Documentation: Final Report - The Lighthouse Project Active Directory FAQs
9:45 AM	BREAK
10:00 AM	Windows ADS discussion continued -- a conference call with the ITAC members and USGS Lighthouse Team; including Donna Scholz, Linda Peng, Paul Exter, Scott Brondel, Roy McCullough, and Mike Kandrac. A "rigorous" discussion of Windows ADS occurred. Local Control/Support vs. Central Control/Support Support Team Plans for Active Directory includes Enterprise Level Management Personnel for Active Directory; One AD Manager with 2 persons per Region. These 2 Active Directory advertised positions in each Region are for developing policy and for representing the Regions. This is the same model as the Lotus Team Structure. Donna Scholz, indicated that the biggest battle to date is to bring the uninformed up to date on Active Directory. Cost FY02 funding is a mute point. FY02 is funding $700K for Active Directory contractors and deployment -- not personnel FTE costs. And for FY03 -- $700K for personnel costs. Reference Donna Scholz's email of 7/16/01 and the Windows 2000 Active Directory Attached Services Cost and Resulting Benefits report. Mandates to each field office Shared AD environment benefits the cost center; but the reality is that not all cost centers will participate, as we see in other enterprise solutions. Even though the Active Directory plan could facilitate scheduled downloads and software updates pushed to the user's desktop; but local administrators will be deciding and controlling how the software downloads will be implemented.
Noon	LUNCH
1:00 PM	District Introductions and Presentations Expected Outcomes:   Mike Strobel, Nevada Associate District Chief, provided a briefing on general District topics; including organizational units, funding and projects. PowerPoint Overview (or pdf format). Margaret Bunch, the Nevada District Computer Support Unit Chief, briefed ITAC on computer implementation topics. PowerPoint Presentation (or pdf format). PDA types: 2 Handsprings in Las Vegas 1 Palm and the rest HP's PDA's will need to synchronize the Lotus Notes. Guidance needed now for Active Directory Service -- District is ready to use ADS now.
2:00 PM	Town Meeting:   Brief Presentations by the Chiefs of AIS, DIS, & NWIS. All District Employees are invited. AIS -- Steve Blanchard reported on AIS. AIS is now in a maintenance mode. A recent release supplied bug fixes and some minor enhancements. Starting next year -- FFS Basis Plus will be the financial system. Dates for FFS Basis Plus: In spring, Project Management In summer, financial management Some of AIS Staff is working part time on NWIS. DIS -- Tom Wood presented an update on the DIS Program Office; including applications activities, systems activities, network and IT security, and USGS IT Reorganization Status. Related Documentation:   DIS Program Office Update (or pdf format)) NWIS -- Alan Lumb presented an update on the NWIS Program Office. NWIS Subsystems: NWIS Software = CORE NWIS NWISWeb LRGS AWUDS GCLAS Alan introduced the new Web Pages for the National Water Information Program Office.
2:30 PM	Town Meeting -- ITAC members and District employees participated in the town meeting questions and answers session. AIS Questions: Is FFS Basis Plus web based? -- Is FFS Basis Plus going to be located on regional servers? -- The initial discussion when Isabelle Halley was part of the group only mentioned a single server. What is the learning curve for FFS Basis Plus? -- Is the FFS Basis Plus staffed by the Bureau? -- Yes, the Bureau has hired Oracle contractors for development. There are plans for a help desk (4 persons). NWIS Questions: Clarification:  Water-Quality update to the web includes data for the 2000 Water Year. -- Are there plans to switch NWIS from Ingres to Oracle? -- There has been some initial planning. There are cost issues. An evaluation will be conducted. Refer to:   -- NWIS Architecture ITAC and the NATWeb ITAC agenda items. Are there plans to have more recent water-quality data on the NWISWeb? -- Yes, Resources are needed. There are issues that the Phoenix user group is addressing. Other Questions: Problem:   Handar and Sutron 8200A instruments are not interfacing to the Windows 2000. Vaisala (Handar) has a beta version of Windows software that runs on Windows 2000 that eliminates the communication problem. Contact is Larry Weaver.   (Jan2002.NV.1) Scott McEwen and Charlie Merk will address this issue and report on these instrument issues. There were questions and issues about synchronization PIM functions with PDAs. -- PIM Features:   Notes email, calendar, address book synchronization must be set up on the Notes Server or on the replicated desktop. NT server can be set up in the District to synchronize the PIM function. -- Loren Kloft uses Cadenza. -- Mike Slifer uses XTDCONNECT. Loren and Mike will provide testimonials and directions for installation and use. There is a question about the FAIR ACT and FTE employees for admin and computer contractor support. -- Refer to the ITAC agenda Item on the FAIR ACT.
3:00 PM	BREAK
3:15 PM	ITAC members -- town meeting discussions on the "list of Action Items" and a "Critique of Town Meeting". See above agenda item. Expected Outcomes:   List of Action Items and Critique of Town Meeting
4:00 PM	ITAC Members had a "rigorous" discussion of Active Directory Service Compare the costs of Bureau wide implementation vs. Division implementation. How many domain controllers will WRD need? This domain controller issue is the same model as WRD uses for NT 4.0. Physical Security Pros, Cons and Requirements of Multiple vs. Single Domains Multiple Domains: Pros -- More local admin control, accountability, no external mandates Servers can act as Domain Controllers and File/Printer servers Less impact in the case of security breach Immediate user creation without Lotus Notes integration Cons --   Single Bureau Domains: Pros -- 24 X 7 support Timeliness of security patch updates Supports strategic goals of the Bureau Integrates with LOTUS Consistent security Cons -- Under scaled impact if security is broken Requirements -- Funds allocated for staff of entire Active Directory. Reliable service to all USGS staff and cooperators (requirement for domain controllers in each WRD District Office; option for subdistrict/field offices. Complete Mission Statement during emergencies). Updated cost/benefits and Lighthouse implementation plan, *Clarify the role of the local site administrator. Evaluated against other IT needs Testing -- determine the modifications to domain controller numbers and placement and impact to network. Training   (Jan2002.NV.2) Sam Martinez will clarifiy the Active Directory benefits to Bureau, cost centers and the site administrators. If you need to get work done in an office when the WAN is down, the office must have a domain controller. Non-binding temperature vote on Active Directory. In favor: --- Multiple Domain Model:   9 --- Single Domain Model:   3   (Jan2002.NV.3) Mike Slifer will draft a memo from ITAC to the GIO Leadership Team to describe the requirements statement, including target list of sties and the ITAC pros and cons for Active Directory Service.
5:00 PM	Review of today's agenda items and adjourn for the day.

Wednesday, January 16, 2002
Time	Agenda Item
8:00 AM	Steve Blanchard shared information on the NWIS Executive Steering Committee progress. { Steve Blanchard's additional ppt slides go here } PowerPoint presentation (or pdf format). Sandy Williamson suggests to add "NWIS user documentation" to powerpoint slide containing list of tasks and responsibilities of NWIS User Groups. Scott McEwen asks "Is NatWeb in the scope of the NWIS ESC?" Steve Blanchard thinks this topic should be included eventually. Real-time data will not be on NatWeb for the next year's rainy season. Scott McEwen asks if NatWeb can use more resources now? See NatWeb topic later in the ITAC meeting. Reference Documentation:   /cm/esc/ESC_index.html
8:30 AM	Alan Lumb presented the NWIS Architecture, and is asking for feedback. NWIS Future Architecture PowerPoint presentation (or pdf format ). Discussion points: Sandy Williamson reports that many folks at Oracle Open World are not happy with the use of Java with Oracle. Data use (warehouse) retrievals generally don't require programming. Graig McHendrie indicated that the pundits are saying that the new Java C# (extension of C++ by Microsoft) is a new tool that users will start using. This Java C# would be a replacement of Visual Basic. NWIS Water use software is Visual Basic. Brian McCallum reported that the LRGS system is a great improvement -- users can access the system from the desktop -- instead of physically going to the LRGS server to view system operations and data. "Proposed Strategy": "Centralize data use servers by implementing NatWeb and enhancing NWISWeb". Discussion centered on clarifying that this is an internal version of NWISWeb containing all of the NWIS data; not just the data for cooperators.
9:00 AM	Alan Lumb and Lorna Schmid/Susan Trapanese (remotely) reported on NATWEB/NWISWeb status. Discussing topics of the "status of deployment", the resource issues, and addressed the concern for processing complexities. Alan's NatWeb-NWISWeb PowerPoint presentation (or pdf format ). Most of the discussion focused on the Web Conceptual Data Flow Diagram Scott McEwen asked:  "When can we (WRD) do all fifty states like we are doing Alaska?" NWISWebside servers software needs to be redesigned to handle all fifty WRD databases. Right now the NWISWeb prototype in Reston (NAD) works with just one District. There is a resource issue. Scott McEwen asked:  "Do you need more support with the technical support?" Susan indicated that good progress is being made. Susan is balancing core NWISWeb products for NWIS 4_2 and the NWISWeb NatWeb work. The highest priority right now is NWISWeb products for NWIS Release 4_2. Hardware needs to be ordered and installed for three more National NWIS Web servers for the three NatWeb locations. And five more NWISbackup servers need to be purchased and installed. Scott McEwen suggests that we should move forward with this action and a limp along capability would be available for five additional Districts, in addition to Alaska. And two more LRGS's need to be procured -- the dollars are available. Scott McEwen suggests that the software and hardware needs to be ready by spring runoff by cutting months off the NatWeb/NWISWeb development and implementation effort. Lorna indicates that this would be impossible because of the amount of software development work required to expand the existing NWISWeb prototype The NWISWeb finite resources are split between the tasks for 1) replicating real-time data and 2) making NWIS 4_2 work. Steve Blanchard indicates that the highest priority is NWIS 4_2 release. A motion is set by Mike Slifer to energize the NWISWeb/NatWeb team, which would put in place a process to procure the five servers and to do the work to bring up the five backup systems. Motion seconded by Brian McCallum. Discussion:  Sandy Williamson suggests that this set of tasks is ambitious. The response time to bring up a District backup of real-time data should be about six hours rather than the two days estimated by Susan. The Districts must be pre-selected. Lorna and Susan will provide comments from Ernest Dreyer and Greg Shank on these suggestions. Greg McHendrie suggested that NatWeb needs to compare the options of placing these servers and LRGS in Sacramento rather than Menlo Park. This motion is brought forward to provide for an Adhoc NWISWeb/NatWeb emergency contingency for spring runoff without impacting the delivery schedule of NWISWeb NWIS 4_2. Motion Vote:   All ITAC members in favor except one opposed.   (Jan2002.NV.4) The four Regional Computer Specialists to ask the regional surface-water specialists for a priority list of Districts in their Regions for the upcoming spring flood season and provide these lists to NatWeb and NWISWeb team leaders. Sandy Williamson suggests that the districts be put into 5 groups where within a group, where more than one district will not likely flood at the same time. Jim Bettendorf asks about a DOMSAT backup. There is a direct feed between Wallops and Reston. This would not help if Wallops goes down, say during a storm event in Wallops. A DRGS capability (2 DRGSs and two demods per DRGS) has been proposed during the September 11 period. This is the redundancy for the Wallops real-time data. Scott McEwen suggests that a proposal (i.e. purchase order) be ready to fly when and if the dollars becomes available. Costs of DRGS's email from Brian McCallum, 1/16/2002. Related Documentation:   NWISWeb URL: http://water.usgs.gov/nwis/news
9:45 AM	BREAK
10:00 AM	Tom Wood and Alan Lumb reported on "Graphics software for WRD" and the issues to be addressed. Related Documentation: Computer graphics in WRD Information for ITAC Charting Software Discussion Also reference 10/16/01 email from Steve Blanchard on this topic: "regarding the loss of G2 as our DGs go away. Your statements regarding the fact that S-Plus and TkG2 offer less capabilities than G2 are also correct. Unfortunately, there is little that we can do in the immediate future to alleviate this problem. There are no commercial-off-the shelf graphics packages, that we are aware of, that will do what we need in WRD. That is why G2 and TkG2 were developed in the past. The ITAC previously addressed this issue and decided that WRD should not be in the business of developing graphics software packages. That is partly why S-Plus was selected to provide us with some graphics capabilities with the hopes that S-Plus capabilities could be enhanced. The groups here in HQ that are most directly responsible for the graphics software, DIS and NWIS, both think that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop the graphics software in house and that it probably would have to be done using Java. We are not prepared to go down that road yet but we do acknowledge that the issues you raise are valid". Discussion of user concerns led by Jessica Alvarez: SPLUS and tkg2 seem slow within NWIS, but it is noted that it is the NWIS Retrievals that run very slow. Once NWIS retrieval is complete, SPLUS and tkg2 run very quickly. Boxplot application for censored data is needed. Command line command capability needed to produce using a template to produce the graphics output postscript file needed. Automated RDB wizard is needed rather than going thru the S-Plus menus; especially for users who need to produce many graphs. Maintaining G2 templates and rerun option is lost -- there is no conversion capability or workaround of G2. Tkg2 can produce time series graph, the user would like this requirement provided by SPLUS. Axis work in SPLUS is the challenge, though S-Plus 6 is supposed to offer improvement in this area. Discussion of graphics issues and solutions continues: Hydra and X-Motif "stuff" must go eventually. SPLUS and tkg2 won't satisfy the NWIS graphics requirements. NWISWeb uses gnuplot. Java may be a good alternative, Java used on GCLAS and other packages. It seems that ITAC members agreed that WRD should not pursue the Jim Fulton proposal to rewrite G2. Sandy Williamson suggests that a browser-deployed graphics display functionality should be investigated. Different solutions are needed for different users. NWIS supports tkg2 thru the Texas District. Wrap up comments on Tom Wood's "Charting Software Discussion" powerpoint slide number 6. titled "Options/Discussions". Bullet 1 is OK. 2 is a maintenance and documentation task rather than a continuing development. 3 is a "no go". 4 Groups and individuals can keep investigating. 5 This continues to be internal NWIS investigation. 6 No need to have a team explore commercial charting software at this time. Expected Outcome:   Issues to be addressed   (Jan2002.NV.9) Tom Wood and Alan Lumb will address issues on graphics.
11:00 AM	Steve Blanchard shared information on the reorganization status of changes within the Office of Information. HASS no longer exists. Customer Relations and Communications Program will be transferred into the ER Communcations Office and a few to the Bureau Communications Office sometime this Spring. Three of AIS staff has been shifted to NWIS Program Staff halftime. OI will likely lose more staff to GIO; such as IT Security, Telecommunications and GIPO later this year. With no overhead next year, there could be severe impacts to technical advisory committees budgets. Value of NT TAC and SUN TAC should be stressed by ITAC members communications through Regional Hydrologist/Regional GIO to the Associate Regional Directors.
11:15 AM	The GIO team reports were provided on these topics: Information Technology Strategic Directions (Steve Blanchard) { Steve Blanchard's word doc goes here } Help Desk   (Tom Wood) ITEM ITEM (Information Technology Exchange Meeting) (Gary Neverdon, Chief, DIS System Support Unit) Enterprise Information Architecture (Sandy Williamson) Sandy Williamson's PowerPoint presentation (or pdf format). Publications   (Allord) - telecon from Florida
Noon	LUNCH
1:00 PM	Mike Slifer reviewed with the members any action items from previous meetings. Completed. Refer to this week's agenda item on templates. Not completed. Completed. Refer to Sandy Williamson's report on network test. Superseded by events. In progress, word document will be supplied at beginning of February. Related Documentation:   ITAC Action Items, Status Report/Action Items of September 11-13, 2001
1:15 PM	At last meeting, Mike proposed election of an ITAC Vice-Chair; open for discussion. Mike has been chair for a little over a year. Mike's term ends December 2002. The majority of ITAC members agree that there should be an ITAC Vice Chair. Sandy Williamson proposes a motion that there be a Vice Chair who assists the Chair and is a likely candidate for the ITAC Chair. Jessie Alvarez seconds motion.   (Jan2002.NV.5) ITAC members send nominations to Charlie Merk in two weeks from today and Mike Slifer will draft an email to conduct the email vote.
1:30 PM	Scott McEwen presented the ITAC Goals for FY 2001 developed and agreed upon by ITAC. Goal 1. -- Produce FUTCOM -- To include subheadings: Inventory (CHASIS Replacement) NWIS Architecture AIS Architecture Etc. FUTCOM topics were changed to include: NWIS Architecture Large GIS Data Sets Remote Training Impacts of the above on LAN and WAN Not much progress has been made. Does ITAC want to continue to have the goal of the FUTCOM report? Why have the FUTCOM leaders not delivered? NWIS Architecture team is making some progress. Mike Slifer will follow up with Greg Allord regarding the Large GIS Teams. Sandy Williamson ran the network test with respect to the Cyber Seminars. Nelson is providing additional information. Goal 2. -- Evaluate and Provide input to Chief, Office of Information, and Senior Staff on the IT/IM reorganization.   --Accomplished Goal 3. -- Provide Senior Staff with a list of priority needs for funding, if funding would become available (June 1 and August 15.)   --Accomplished Goal 4. -- Develop recommendations for Field Computer Hardware and Software.   --Accomplished Goal 5. -- Complete External NWIS Review and present results to Senior Staff.   --Accomplished Goal 6. -- Finalize and distribute complete archive recommendations.   -- Not completed. ITAC intended the scope for this goal to be only the NWIS data. A decision was made by the WRD three technical offices to rewrite Report 92-56 by Ernie Hubbard. Brian McCallum reported that there are District data archival plans. Refer to the Massachusetts Data Management Plans.   (Jan2002.NV.6) Scott McEwen, Loren Kloft, Jessie Alvarez and Brian McCallum will find out status of the technical office's data archival report if not completed, will draft a data archival model, including checklists, of what needs to be archived by the next meeting. Gene Summerhill, Office of Information has on his place the job of developing policy and guidelines for WRD to comply with NARA.
3:00 PM	Next Scott McEwen presented the proposed ITAC Goals for FY 2002. Topics include: Windows Active Directory Services Deployment Training Information Technology Information Management FUTCOM Update Scott McEwen summarized Mike Slifer's "Proposed ITAC Goals for Fiscal Year 2002: During fiscal year 2002, ITAC will research and analyze the following topics. Deliverables to the Water Resources Division Senior Staff will be due on January 2003. Windows Active Directory Services Deployment -- ITAC will respond to critical Windows Active Directory Services proposals and activities by providing written statements of consensus directly to the GIO Leadership Team and to WRD Senior Staff. -- This goal will require that ITAC request a form of delegated authority --from the WRD Senior Staff-- to allow ITAC to respond directly to the GIOLT, in addition to WRD, Sr. Staff on matters dealing with Windows ADS. The justification for this request is a matter of maintaining direct communication with the GIOLT and providing timely response to the GIOLT in the shaping of Bureau policies that will impact Information Technology service and delivery in WRD. Training -- ITAC will prepare a Information Technology Training Needs Assessment Report to Sr. Staff. The report will focus on suggested training required by computer support staff, recommended sources of that training, and a recommended approach of how to meet programs these training needs. The role of EDP, EDNA, ITEM, and professional certification will be addressed. Information Technology -- ITAC will produce a "Futures" report on one or more selected issues:   Publications technology and support infrastructure, IT Support of desktop/laptop/handheld computers, and/or security. Information Management -- ITAC will present a written assessment and/or policy proposal to Sr. Staff addressing two Information Management topics: 1) spatially-enabled databases and 2) archival of NWIS and project data. FUTCOM Update -- Scott McEwen enlightened the members of ITAC with a the FUTCOM update. He stated that the FUTCOM plan, as established in a prior meeting is: NWIS architecture -- Who:   NWIS,AMS, Sun_TAC, NT_TAC, Harry House, Steve Brady, Greg Shank What:   Utilize the Babcock/Briggs/Trapanese list of questions/issues Large GIS data sets -- Who:    Bob Pierce or designee, Al Rea, Curtis Price, Boyce Blanks, Bob Wakelee, Dave McCullock, Greg Allord What:   Technology requirements for storing and serving Remote training -- Who:    Sandy Williamson, Dianne Jeffries, Terry Reinitz, FWS/USDA/FHA rep. What:   Desktop and network requirements Requirements for LAN & WAN bandwidth -- Who:    Bob Wakelee, Steve Brady or Greg Shank, Boyce Blanks, Nelson Williams, Terry Reinitz What:   Implications of 1, 2, 3 above, and all other uses (incl. FFS+BASIS+) Discussion on the FY02 Goals followed: Active Directory Services Deployment: ITAC members agree on ADS as the number one goal. Training:   ITAC members agree on the ITAC training goal; however Mike Slifer suggests that training be removed as a goal and that training recommendations be added as an action item for ITAC members. Information Technology: Under IT, begin to document computer operations in each cost center. ITAC suggest that ITAC drop Information Technology as a FY02 ITAC goal. Information Management: Pubs and Help Desk have GIO Tiger Teams in these areas. Brain McCallum suggest that the Electronic Publication of annual data reports in pdf format be a FY02 goal. Alan Lumb suggests that the ownership and quality assurance process be clarified for HASS software could be documented and delivered as a FY02 goal. A plea from Jessica Alvarez regarding the goals of getting help with some District software: such as G2 replacement, SPLUS, LANDESK, LOTUS Notes features, etc. ITAC agrees to drop Information Management as a FY02 ITAC goal. Add an ITAC goal to continue with the FUTCOM goal. Mike Slifer suggests that ITAC take the FY02 goals to a product status, say a white paper, on certain ITAC issues.   (Jan2002.NV.7) ITAC Members shall send comments on the FY02 goals to Mike Slifer by February 5.   (Jan2002.NV.8) Mike Slifer will provide a write-up of the FY02 goals.
3:45 PM	BREAK
4:00 PM	Steve Blanchard shared information on the Fair Act. Steve's FAIR Act Briefing (Powerpoint Presentation) (or pdf format). { Memo dated January 4, 2002 from Kathryn Clement to Michael Del-Colle Subject Competitive Plan Submissions and Bureau Commercial Activities Teams } { Document:  USGS Commercial Activities Inventory Guidelines -- FAIR Act -- Dated April 17, 2000 goes here }
4:30 PM	Scott McEwen then discussed "ITAC and Bureau Support": Several Topics including: Lotus Notes and associated collaborative tools Active Directory Telecommunications Inadequate resources / "volunteers" This agenda item "ITAC and Bureau Support" has been scheduled; however the discussions are threaded throughout the ITAC Meeting.
5:00 PM	Sandy Williamson gave an ORACLE Video presentation ( Series::E-Business@Work:E-Business@Work: U.S. Geological Survey and http://oracle.com/ebusinessnetwork -- type usgs in search box at top left; you will see Carolyn Mcculough's 12 min. interview with the oracle VP for Portal and our 7min video)
5:15 PM	Adjourn for the day.

Thursday, January 17, 2002
Time	Agenda Item
8:00 AM	Nelson Williams reported on the status of USGS Standard Forms. There are 16 electronic Lotus forms applications to date; 12 in Word; 90 in Frame. The Lotus forms currently on URL https://gsvaresa01.er.usgs.gov/Forms.nsf are: USGS BUSINESS PROCESS: 9-064 Property Transfer 9-090 Employee Clearance Report 9-1185 Intention Notice & Compliance 9-1205 Overtime Request 9-1216 Request For Usgs Forms Action 9-1338 Contract For Gage Reading 9-1366 Joint Funding Agreement 9-1482 Agreement For Gaging Station 9-1483 Agreement For Maintenance Use 9-1888 Headquarters Parking Permit 9-2048 IPAC Billing Request 9-2073 Telecommunications 9-3096 USGS Business Systems Request 9-3098 Request for Interpreting Services SF-182 Training Form SF-71 Standard Form Leave Request SF-1417 Presolicitation Notice There are issues with pdf and Word forms; such as needing licenses for pdf-fillable at $27 per license, forms package functions and options, etc. DIS Program office has requested of the WRD offices the { reference Terry Reinitz's web page } that is a clearinghouse of electronics forms. The real challenge is getting the current paper form. DI-1 is the most popular form and is completed. There is an APS person (Deborah Kimball) who approves each electronic form before the electronic form can be posted to the Web Page.
8:30 AM	Mike Slifer presented an overview of the ITAC committee functions. { Mike's ppt presentation goes here }
8:45 AM	Mike Slifer gave an "Introduction to ITAC" presentation. PowerPoint presentation (or pdf format)
9:00 AM	Sandy Williamson shared information on the status of Telecommunications & Cyber Seminars. Cyber Seminar Network Test Results presentation (PowerPoint format) (or pdf format) A discussion of the bureau gateways followed: Garry Neverdon and Sandy suggested that there needs to be analysis of the way the Mae East and Mae West Gateways and architecture works. There are Single paths at both gateways, which may add time to a transaction. Delays may occur at routers. Delays may occur at devices. Garry Neverdon reports that he is still awaiting feedback on these issues from Elaine Stout's group. WAN response time should be 3 - 5 seconds. Nelson Williams reported that Elaine's group is investigating a scenario with four tiers. 8 tier one sites -- major offices or critically geographic offices. Rolla, Vancouver, Atlanta, Reston, Denver, Chicago. These tiers will run at ATM speeds and "fully meshed" with each other. Tier 2 sites: reps from each discipline decided these. Not fully meshed, 4 per region, multi-discipline sites T3 speeds. Includes California, Wisconsin, Woods Hole and Texas among others. After Regions were instituted in the Bureau, there were additional comments. Patuxent would be dropped and Leetown would be added. { Graig McHendrie read a list of tier 2 sites; possibly on a Bureau web site } Tier 3 and Tier 4 sites would not be funded by a Congressional line item, like the Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites. Tier 3 sites are mostly districts and tier 4 sites are mostly subdistrict and project offices. Bob Wakelee indicated that Tier 2 site determinations were holding up his efforts to upgrade certain sites, but Nelson indicated that these sites were not Tier 2 sites. Nelson Williams suggested that ITAC communicate with the Bureau group about the telecommunication issues.
9:30 AM	Karen Siderelis discussed the status and plans for the Bureau IT/IM Reorganization. Karen presented a short summary of the GIO reorg with a chalktalk. Refer to Karen's presentation in the previous ITAC meeting. An GIO umbrella team organized two phases: 1) broad organizational issues and 2) more specific IM/IS issues such as information center, libraries, etc. GIO Staff: Linda Housel is the secretary. Hedy Rossmeissl and Anne Frondorf are working full time on the GIO staff. Tony Frank (ending this week) and Bob Pierce are on details. Jan Simmons will be on a developmental detail in the IS unit starting next week. Karen indicated the current staff in the regional offices, tiger team leaders, and GIOLT members. GIO Organizational Groups: Federal Geographic Data Committee Information Technology Unit/Office:   CTO focuses on policy and operations are focused in the Regions: four team leaders for 1) telcom, 2) computer infrastructure, 3) knowledge management/collaborative technology, and 4) a set of operational activities and functions that could not be regionalized. Information Management:   oversees new initiative of information science, large data base issues, other content areas etc. Added value is the focus for integrated science not to bring discipline data systems New budget initiative for bureauwide GIS implementation. GIS is an IM activity. Information Services consolidating information functions with Regional operational units: ESICs, publishing, libraries, etc. Working with Director to figure out how to fund and implement this group. IRM policy unit from OIS will move into this unit. Position approved for Chief Technology Officer and currently is advertised. GIO LT consists of the information chiefs in each disciplines and reps from the three regions as well as three chiefs in the GIO. Also, Reps from APS and HR are on this GIOLT. The GIOLT is not a committee but an organizational unit with bureauwide responsibilities and will include performance standards for the GIOLT members. This GIOLT will address issues and make decisions on bureau issues, such as telecom. There will be an all-day meeting in Reston in January. Issues now include ADS -- Regional GIO contacts will bring forward the technical issues. Donna Scholz will define cost and benefits. An advisory committee will be formed along the model of the ITAC, but the charge and the charter has not been formed. Karen notes that this new advisory committee not replace ITAC but would only strengthen the efforts of the GIOLT. The GIO office is a new organizational unit -- Karen is not moving existing organization units, say OIS units, directly into the GIO office.
10:30 AM	Discussion / question and answer session with the GIO and ITAC members. Sandy Williamson asks about improving accountability with respect to the personnel in the existing OIS and the movement of these positions to the GIO. Karen answers that the new GIO will not be as large as the existing OIS. Some of the OIS personnel will be moved, say to staff the new Eastern Region technology units COTRs would be added to the regional IT/IM units. The accountability is the major focus of the GIOLT. Grady Moore asks about accountability and how "even services" and accountability will be provided. Karen indicates that accountability may be more complex in the Regional model and Karen says she is responsible for setting the pace. Karen's choice of the CTO is a major and critical milestone for leading the accountability issue. Sandy Williamson asks about the validity of the Regional model. Karen indicates that fitting into the model that has been chosen by the Director is her goal. The organization of the GIO and the associated Regional information offices will reflect this model. Graig McHendrie asks about the status and plans regarding the WRD Regional Computer Specialists positions. Karen indicated that the other disciplines are not planning to have RCSers. But Karen is not advocating a change to the WRD RCS positions. The Regional GIO will be helping with the new areas of Information Management and Information Services organizational units once these units are established fully functioning, not just the Information Technology. Greg McHendrie asks about the accountability for teams, such as Lotus Notes, ADS, etc. Karen indicates that the operational line management comes from the region -- this is the essence of matrix management. Policy and direction is to be driven by HQ staff. The key to success will be the SLAs. Scott McEwen asks if ITAC should bring issues to the GIOLT. Karen Siderelis answers that this would be a good communications avenue. In response to Steve Blanchard's question, Karen indicated that the FFS Basis Plus will remain an activity in the APS organization. Steve Blanchard asks if there will be more than one server for BASIS PLUS. Scott McEwen asks if there are small amounts of dollars to support specific projects supported by FTEs in WRD Districts. Karen Siderelis answers that there is not a huge amount of discretionary dollars in the GIO office this year -- but the GIO office would like to have this capability. The question was asked if the BRD had issues with Active Directory. Karen indicated that she has not heard anything about ADS from BRD. Karen seeks her advice on this and other issues from the GIOLT, specifically the GIOLT discipline representative. Karen responded that there are three avenues to make issues known to the GIO: ITAC -- thru Steve Blanchard. The ITAC will not be disbanded. GIOLT -- thru Steve Blanchard Regional GIO and Regional Discipline Chiefs Sandy Williamson asks -- What's in it for WRD?" Karen responds that there probably are more benefits to the water discipline in the new GIO organizational structures in the areas of Information Management and Information Structures areas, than in the Information Technology area. Karen indicates that the Water Discipline thru ITAC may be much more effective in communicating with the GIO because ITAC is so organized. The effectiveness of the ITAC should increase not decrease. Karen indicates that the GIO office has an enterprise view and areas of responsibility, but is not planning to be a large organization. Karen says she will be available, if necessary, to address the ITAC at future meetings.
11:00 AM	Mike Slifer finalized the Carson City meeting with a wrap-up session that included the following discussions: A Review and validation of action items from this ITAC meeting. Determined the date and location for next meeting ... Next ITAC meeting to be at District Office in Troy, New York scheduled for May 14-16, 2002 A draft agenda for the next meeting ... Approving Goals for FY02 Short followup on ADS and communications with GIO LT ITAC funding priorities Overview of Quick Place - WILLIAMSON
NOON	MEETING ADJOURN