Altemonte Springs, Florida, June 12-14, 1996 Computer Policy Advisory Committee (CPAC) Minutes Altamonte Springs, Florida, June 12-14, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Present: Kathy Peter (chair) Absent: Brian Mrazik Gloria Stiltner Kevin Oberg Steve Brady Jonathon Scott (minutes) Guests: Scott Gain (6/12) Sharon Goss David Boldt (6/12) Jon Nowlin Scott McEwen Cheryl Nelson Jim Bettandorf Pete Rogerson Merritt Blalock Graig McHendrie Ernie Brunson (6/13) Betsy Daniel (facilitator & recorder) Janice Ward (6/13) Verne Schneider Lew Wade (6/13) Bill Carswell (missed 6/12) Isabelle Halley Dave Schultz Greg Allord Richard Hollway (missed 6/12) Alan Lumb Charles Tibbals Arlen Harbaugh Jerad Bales (missed 6/14) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 12, 1996 Orientation: Charles Tibbals presented an overview of the Altemonte Springs subdistrict organization, activities, cooperators, and hydrology. Scott Gain, (Data-Section Chief/SW Specialist/Computer-Section Supervisor), presented an overview of computer hardware and software used in the subdistrict, showing the connectivity between the Unix and PC environments. There is a committment to using "corporate software"; Nearly everyone uses Framemaker, although no-one uses Tactician. There are (approx.) 28 DG's, 29 PC's, and 1 DG file server. Windows 95 was found to be an improvement over FTP software for network reliability. Use SAMBA for remote-file access. PC disks are backed up by the PC users to DG disks using DOS-based software, however many of the users' files reside principally on the Unix disks. Disk crashes have been an "effective training tool" (some users have lost data due to hardware failures and learned the importance of proper system administration the hard way). PC <-> PC communication is through IPX; PC <-> Unix communication is through TCP/IP. The Unix platforms cannot mount PC disks, nor print to PC printers; although the converse is functional. Use the XonNet software for X-window emulation on the PC's. Also use the pcAnywhere package. The initial impetus for purchasing individual PC's was to get X-terminal-like access with local computing and disk storage for a comparable expenditure. It has been difficult to find and retain qualified computer personnel to assist with performing the requisite activities. PC software packages used: MS-Office Pro (inc. Excel), a few Lotus users, several PC Framemaker licenses, and various mail readers (supported by POPPER software on the Unix side). Any "non-standard" software is not supported by the subdistrict staff. Users do install their own software on the PC's. Some of the biggest problems have been file incompatibilities caused by different revisions of software in use. Every hyd. tech. has a laptop and a desktop unit. Data transferred from laptops using diskettes or the Laplink package. There are 6-7 field instruments equipped with cellular telephones (rather than DCP's) because the time window is too short to transmit the data volume from 15-minute interval evapo-transpiration data stations (climate-type parameters). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Members Expectations for the Meeting: 1. Clarification of the NWIS, WWW, and Futures activities 2. Identify the roles of CPAC, Planning and Review Team for Water Information Systems (PARTWIS), and the Senior Staff Board (SSB) 3. Get feedback form CPAC on suite of NWIS issues 4. Get accurate info. on the NWIS conversion effort 5. Determine where CPAC is going with the strategic plan 6. Get a sense of CPAC accomplishments 7. Reaffirm CPAC decisions on NWIS and communicate those decisions 8. Clarify CPAC role 9. Hear from PARTWIS and the SSB 10.CPAC: "to be or not to be" 11.Find out why Senior Staff created PARTWIS and the SSB 12.Assure cooperators access to our data 13.Find out schedules for NWIS conversion and redesign 14.Communicate clearly the reasons for CPAC decisions 15.Develop a strategy for providing information to the Senior Staff 16.Answer questions about NWIS-I being a "generic" port 17.Discuss Regional Computer Specialists (RCS) as CPAC members ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Town Meeting: o Explanation of CPAC and a little history o Introductions o Briefings: -> AIS: payroll module will be released at end of July 96. Will take about 9 months to get all Districts on-line. Currently prototyping conversion of AIS on other platforms and making AIS more portable. -> NWIS: plan to complete conversion of NWIS code by end of summer 96, with testing in Fall-Winter, expecting initial field implementation April 97. Currently revisiting the NWIS requirements for planning future revisions. -> DIS: prototyping Windows-NT server concept. Current issues: DG purchasing ends in 96, Prime maintenance ends in 9/97, there will be no new DG Framemaker versions, how to provide Ingres support for DG's, and determination of the need for more Unix platforms in WRD. o Question/Answer session: -> What is the future of Tactician? Not bright. -> How widespread is PC usage among Districts? Varies widely. -> Have other offices slowed DG purchasing? Yes. -> What will happen to DG's in five years? Depends upon our need for DG servers. -> Couldn't the WRD just contract out a complete replacement of our computer systems and software? Future holds piecemeal gradual changes to our computing environment, rather than wrenching change. -> How will we get Internet capability from our Frame documents? Frame 5 web support is poor. Use of the currently available "webmaker" software is the best answer. -> We need a good plotting/charting package: G2 redraws are too slow. Can we get commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) software? There is already a "suggested package list" for PC/Mac/Unix software. HASS distributes PC-based software for hydrologic applications, see: --and-- AI: Gloria to provide the "suggested package list" (Done: 6/13/96) -> Will new Unix boxes be heterogeneous or just one new platform? Not decided...depends on WRD needs analysis. -> Will G2 be enhanced, some of us like it and have found bugs; esp. exporting files to Coreldraw? Not decided. Before Jim Fulton, designer of G2, left the Survey he had planned porting G2 so it was platform dependent. Since Jim has resigned there is no one immediately available to perform this and other updates to G2, which will take at least one year. AI: DIS will prepare a business analysis of the G2 enhancement/conversion and provide to CPAC before the September meeting. -> How realistic is the ADAPS conversion timeline? Much is already done, and some of the most difficult parts are already completed. ADAPS does NOT have a "millennium problem". -> Will the DG software work on a Sun or an HP? We are working with the vendors to allow us to transfer software licenses among the hardware platforms that we use. This has already been done with Arc/Info and SAS. -> Are there plans to improve the data exchange among gov't agencies? The WWW has already done some of this. Word/WordPerfect <-> Frame conversions are problematic, especially due to different revisions. It is unlikely we will ever get general agreements on word-processing software. Reluctance of some agencies to release data widely may hinder some data exchanges. -> Can you use STORET for the NWIS redesign? We just completed an analysis of seven competing hydrologic data-base systems. It seems that NWIS-I is the most functional of these systems, including STORET. -> Is portability in the design plan for the NWIS-I port? To a large extent: Yes; However two portability problems are posed by converting CPL programs (to Unix scripts), and indexed-sequential files (ISAM, Midas). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Presentation of "Integration of Windows NT and Unix" by David Boldt Notes are incorporated by reference, see: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Town Meeting Retrospective: o Local presentations were helpful. o Length of AIS/NWIS/DIS presentations (approx. 5 min. each) was proper. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposed Futures Committee: Discussed a list of questions, tasks, and members proposed for a CPAC subgroup to work on the "Dynamic Computer Model" part of the strategic plan. Most discussion dealt with the timing of the recommendations (need guidance to the field for this year's purchases versus longer term decisions). There is a conflict between making quick recommendations to maintain desirable standardization and making decisions that are defensible to a diverse audience. Additional discussions included: making the goals vendor/product independent, listings of possible configurations with advantages and disadvantages, and whether enterprise modeling must be done first. AI: Sharon Goss will provide DIS with the AIS office-automation functional requirements by June 21. Tabled until Friday, with Arlen Harbaugh, Steve Brady, and Gloria Stiltner tasked to develop a proposed charter for the committee and revise the suggested membership. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposed Futures Committee, continued: (Friday, June 14 discussion inserted into minutes here for clarity.) The subgroup provided the following charter and membership proposal: -------------- Charge for CPAC Future Computer Environment Subgroup 1. By August 1, 1996, put together a document that describes current knowledge about several alternatives for providing additional non-DG computing power -- e.g. non-DG Unix workstations, Windows servers, and networked personal computers. Include information about costs, sample configurations, support efforts, pros & cons, etc. 2. By August 1, 1996, document the DG resources (CPU size, memory, and disk) needed to run the converted NWIS-I system. 3. By the next CPAC meeting, develop one or more possible scenarios describing how WRD could choose its nationally supported hardware and software and the degree of support. These scenarios would then be presented to CPAC for discussion. The scenarios would NOT describe specific hardware and software to be supported; rather, they would describe the processes by which WRD could rationally make choices. Members: Richard Hollway, chairman David Boldt Jim Bettandorf Chris Barnes Merritt Blalock Scott McEwen Steve Brady Graig McHendrie Arlen Harbaugh -------------- Discussion: -> There is a need for immediate leadership to assist with ongoing purchasing decisions and to avoid loss of consistent software in the Division. -> Juxtaposed with this immediate need is the need to analyze the ability of DIS to support at various levels (purchase, integrate, provide version control, installation assistance, and user assistance), and determine the functional requirements and marketplace for various software packages. -> DIS could simply adopt software by popular vote, or marketplace surveys. -> A motion to recommend to the field that if purchasing an office- automation package, then suggest buying MS-Office-Pro failed with 7/19 members voting against. (CPAC uses 75% super-majority rule). The consensus among "no" voters was that there was no defensible justification for the recommendation. AI: DIS will prepare a defensible business analysis of an office- automation procurement recommendation by August 1, for CPAC action at the September meeting. Decision: Futures group charge and membership accepted as written, with the understanding that processes developed under item three must provide timely results. The Futures group will report progress at the September meeting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Implementation Plan for the Software Library: There are three basic elements to the proposed plan: (1) configuration management, (2) coding standards, and (3) documentation. Resource requirements are: reallocation of existing FTE and $22K for a Sun, plus a $10K Cadre configuration-management software license. Questions: -> How can configuration management be done on Sun in Reston when the software development is done in the field? Cadre was tried before, and was abandoned. Why should it work now? The evaluation team considered that the software has changed, and is convinced that it will work. -> The implementation plan proposes a six-month timeline, precisely what will be accomplished in six months? AI: HASS to define the six-month product, revise plan by next meeting. -> Coding standards are required for each library entry, yet the workplan does not include development/adoption of coding standards for languages other than C and Fortran. AI: HASS to add this work element to the plan and check on Arc Macro Language (AML) coding standards with Mark Negri. Scripting language standards are also an issue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 13, 1996 Introduction of PARTNWIS and CPAC members. Expectations of CPAC members: 1. Define roles and lines of communication among the advisory groups 2. Come to consensus on the porting issues among these groups 3. Discuss issues so future actions are well grounded 4. Reaffirm CPAC decisions, get schedule and NWIS info. 5. Make decision and move forward 6. Define roles of various groups 7. Take action and "just do it" 8. Provide data and get feedback 9. Learn more about WRD (from Ernie Brunson, NMD) 10. Communicate 11. How can the NWQL communicate data to it's customers 12. Determine if there is a need for two decision-making groups 13. Get assurance for our constituencies that NWIS is on-track & within budget 14. Address concerns about past decisions 15. To realize commonalities 16. Both groups will speak as one and move ahead 17. Use CPAC as an advisory group 18. Remove uncertainty and build confidence for the NWIS staff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SSB and PARTWIS Presentations by Lew Wade and Janice Ward The conflicting advice from CPAC (stop current NWIS-II, port current NWIS-I) and from the NMD review team (stop current NWIS-II, keep NWIS-I on the Primes) motivated the Senior Staff to create the PARTWIS and SSB. The Senior Staff action was designed to meet WRD's and our customer's needs, noting that: (1) The Senior Staff cannot manage the NWIS project with 4-5 meetings/year and 15 members, and (2) there is a need for a broad spectrum of expert advice. The actions taken by the Senior Staff were: -> Accept the CPAC recommendation to port, but stop the porting effort if unforeseen, serious problems develop. -> Form a colleague review team (PARTWIS) to provide a balance of opinions, that are interactive, accessible (25-50% time devoted and located in Reston), and knowledgable with experience in the field and with a program perspective. PARTWIS will provide up to one year of on-going, in-depth colleague review for NWIS on behalf of the Senior Staff. The members of the PARTWIS are: Janice Ward (OWQ, chair), Merritt Blalock (NER RCS), Robert Mason (OSW), Ernie Brunson (NMD), Jim Jancaitis (NMD), and two non-voting (yet to be selected) private consultants. -> Form the SSB, a subset of the Senior Staff, to interface between PARTWIS and the Senior Staff. Membership: Lew Wade (chair), Cathy Hill, Verne Schneider, Bill Carswell, and Bill Alley. The three groups: CPAC, PARTWIS, and SSB perform different roles, and CPAC cannot supply enough time to fill the on-going NWIS oversight role. Management oversight needs: Short term: Confirm that NWIS is a priority commitment. Get Senior Staff involvement in critical decisions. Oversee implementation. Long term: Develop a vision for water information systems. Identify mission-critical activities. Strategic planning. Dedicate resources. PARTWIS activities: The objectives are to: (1) provide on-going colleague review, and (2) perform validation of the processes used in the software development. These objectives lead to: External review of water-information system activities; improved documentation of activities, decisions, and options; focused senior-staff involvement; and documentation of additional resources needed. Examples: Short Term: Write charter, distribute information, add consultants, review conversion activities, identify and communicate problems Long Term (4-6 months): Review the NWIS enhancement list, review NWIS activities, propose improvements to water-information systems recommend a process for strategic planning. PARTWIS has identified the following factors for a successful (port) conversion: o Minimize risks o Use experienced developers o Attain same or better performance o Use configuration management as had on the Prime techniques o Do frequent reviews o Involve users early o Plan and schedule in detail o Provide adequate hardware o Meet deadline of 9/97 for full WRD implementation Discussion: -> Duplication of the lines of communication and responsibilities will play poorly in the field. -> Need to finalize the port decision quickly....The port decision is made and PARTWIS is now reviewing the port implementation plans. -> NWIS-I conversion is straight-forward; review not especially helpful nor insightful to help with NWIS redesign, which is the more important problem. However, the establishment of these business processes during the port may provide useful experiences and models for application during the redesign phase. -> CPAC's method of reporting to the Senior Staff needs to be improved. -> If PARTWIS will be temporary and it's mission is strictly collegial review, then independence is good; however if it's goals are broader, there is a potential conflict with CPAC goals and the possibility of more conflicting advice given to the Senior Staff. -> CPAC would have immense difficulties providing the level of effort needed for the review. CPAC members provide a pool of technical experience that PARTWIS can draw upon for assistance. However CPAC shouldn't slow down PARTWIS by requiring all actions go through CPAC to the SSB.The SSB must make decisions quickly and cannot bring all the issues before CPAC. Recommendation for the Senior Staff: o PARTWIS will be redefined as a subgroup of CPAC o PARTWIS member(s) will attend CPAC meetings and report on their activities o PARTWIS will advertise their meetings, and CPAC members may attend o Both committees will share information o CPAC members may comment on PARTWIS information or recommendation o CPAC chair may suggest tasks for PARTWIS to the SSB o PARTWIS makes recommendations to the SSB and CPAC is represented on the SSB (by members: Bill Carswell and Verne Schneider). o SSB will make decisions from PARTWIS recommendations within three days ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cost/Benefit Analysis of the NWIS-I conversion With advice from PARTWIS, a cost/benefit comparison of keeping NWIS-I on the Primes versus converting NWIS-I to the Data Generals was performed. An initial, working copy was presented and discussed, especially from the perspective of whether this version of the document was adequate as documentation of the conversion decision. Agreed to include addition of a (high) estimate for additional DG hardware that might be necessary to run NWIS-I at $50,000/site * 44 sites =~ $2,200,000. The bottom-line results: o NWIS-I on Primes: 56.5 FTE, $8,850,000 o NWIS-I on DGs: 26.0 FTE, $6,180,000 (includes hardware addition) The working document did not include costs associated with the risks of catastrophic failure of data-base systems; that could be substantial and include the loss of: goodwill, cooperative programs, gaging stations, life, and property. Also missing are substantial costs associated with validating a PRIMOS revision and supporting software that are free of the "millennium problem". Additional discussion questioned how much detail is needed, the value of the analysis for assisting with the system conversion, and who should perform the additional analysis. Decision: CPAC supports the process of improving the cost/benefit analysis of the conversion effort. Recommendation: CPAC suggests to the SSB that manpower resources be made available from headquarters staff to use EXISTING information (no questionnaires) for completing the cost/benefit analysis. (One dissenting vote, majority rule invoked). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Status of the conversion effort: o The conversion effort is the NWIS group's highest priority o The maximum effective manpower resources are already dedicated to the conversion effort, using the most experienced people o Goals: No data will be lost, software will be stable on release, and there will be minimal disruption to District operations o There will be no new functionality o Changes to the software will be made for: (1) failure to compile/link, (2) incorrect storage or display of data, or (3) abnormal termination of the program o The Unix Revision Control System (RCS) is used for configuration management o Performance testing is already underway: -> On Prime using Midasplus -> On DG using Fastplus (a Midasplus replacement product) -> On DG using an library of interface routines that mimic Midasplus subroutines using Ingres (Inglib). AI: NWIS will prepare a decision matrix explaining how the decision will be made to use Fastplus or an ingres-interface library. The information will be supplied to PARTWIS and e-mailed to CPAC. -> Current draft schedule Time-line Endpoint Task Completed 07/31/96 Fastplus/Inglib decision 08/31/96 Test data sets compiled 09/30/96 Conversion of data-base software Transfer and installation software Integration testing System components configured using RCS 11/30/96 User-acceptance tests 03/31/97 Alpha and Beta tests 09/30/97 System installed WRD wide Discussions: Field office operational concerns may be missing from the implementation schedule. Questions arose about the testing planned to occur in Montana and Arizona. There are several types of tests CPAC members would like to see: (1) Comparison of Fastplus to Inglib, (2) Checking performance using different hardware and software choices and data-base sizes, (3) Determining the influence on performance of other non-NWIS processing running on the data-base host. These different test scenarios would provide information for: making the Fastplus/Inglib decision and advice on possible Data General procurements that must be completed before the end of the fiscal year. Additional resources for NWIS may be needed for testing of the NWIS-I conversion during FY 1996. If additional resources are available, user-group testers will participate. It is important to have detailed plans and timelines, updated frequently (weekly?). AI: NWIS to provide additional details on the timeline for the conversion effort to PARTWIS and e-mail to CPAC by June 30. AI: Timeline, current status, test plan and other information will be included in the WWW page currently being developed by the NWIS team. (Update on 6/24/96: NWIS plans for this page to be functional by July 1, 1996.) See: Suggestions: Use standard USGS footer on the WWW page(s) and include the date-of-last update and planned update time interval on the page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amdahl, WATSTORE, NAWDEX, MWDI, transfer of data to STORET and the WWW: o Knowledgable staff for maintaining Amdahl software is limited o WRD should provide a national database for both public and internal use o An interagency agreement with EPA to provide data to STORET is currently implemented using the WATSTORE water-quality data base o A conceptual proposal is to coordinate efforts among the NWIS, Water Information Office, and the Illinois District to develop a publicly accessible national hydrologic database on the WWW. o Statistics presented on WATSTORE usage show very small public access of the systems. Discussion: -> The majority of customers obtain data from District offices. Any plan should be focused on software/data bases at the District level. -> Some parts of the Amdahl system could be discontinued simply because they are not used (useless). -> Push to put data on the WWW seems driven by technology, rather than a reasoned management decision to do so. -> The proposal should be presented in terms of an operational business activity, rather than as a research project; or successful Divisionwide implementation is unlikely. -> Repairing data-quality problems in an easily accessible public data base would stress field-office personnel resources. -> Existing Bureau policy requires three elements for a publicly accessible data base: (1) a data-base manager, (2) thorough documentation, and (3) data review and quality assurance. -> The issues of discontinuing use of Amdahl-based hydrologic data systems and installing national hydrologic data-base systems on the WWW are not intrinsically linked, and should be considered separately. AI: WI and TS will develop proposals on the two separate issues: (1) discontinuing the hydrologic data-base systems on the Amdahl and (2) the creation of national hydrologic data-bases using the WWW. The proposals will be distributed to CPAC by mid-August and discussed at the September meeting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enterprise Modeling: o Provides a "business view" of an organization's processes o Documents what we do and how it changes o Helps to identify "unreasonable" processes o Begins by identifying an organization's objective that is decomposed into processes by experts in the activity. o Jim Schornick, Jim Paschal, and Berwyn Jones are working with the IDEF0 software. Their model is based on four high-level processes: (1) Maintain and improve the infrastructure for WRD activities (2) Identify, promote, fund, plan, coordinate, manage, and review programs and projects (3) Conduct hydrologic monitoring, investigations, and research (4) Prepare, publish, and disseminate hydrologic data and information products o The fourth process has been decomposed by a team led by Greg Allord. This effort lead to a potential need for a document-management system, to track iterative revisions to approved documents. Discussion: -> How much documentation is enough? -> How do you use the results? Documents existing processes. May help define workflows for software needs. -> Who is the correct person(s) to define the processes? The decomposition is artistic and dependent upon who performs the analysis. -> NMD tried enterprise modeling, but could not come to consensus on the decomposition although they iterated several times. However, it did help to define software functional requirements. -> The Yucca Mountain Project has a revision-control process for documents that costs 3-5 times normal, and the process still occasionally loses documents. -> The potential benefits of enterprise modeling may be broader than simply software-need analysis. The expertise to properly perform the modeling would require broader participation of the Division. AI: Bill Carswell and Verne Schneider will draft statement containing the sense of the CPAC discussions on enterprise modeling for the Senior Staff. The statement is to be available for CPAC review by June 28. The Senior Staff will make any decisions regarding future enterprise modeling. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Support for WRD WWW operations: CPAC formed a subgroup at the April 96 meeting (Kevin Oberg, Greg Allord, and Richard Hollway) to define the WWW operational issues. Their report is reproduced below. 1. Guidance on how to 'publish' on the Web is needed. * There is a general feeling that there is no guidance about what reports should be put on the Web and what should not. All fact sheets are being published on the Web, but it seems that other reports are done in the absence of an overall strategy. * There is a need for guidance (ie policy), not just guidelines. SPIDER has put out guidelines for web pages, but there is no guidance regarding what reports and even data that should/should not be 'published' on the Web. * There is a misunderstanding of what is already being produced for web-distribution that is internally funded. For example, Joann mentioned that ALL approved abstracts are 'automatically' being added. 2. Instructions for setting up Web servers in a consistent manner are needed for both reports and data. 3. There is a basic need for Web support and coordination in the Survey. This should be a priority for funding by HQ. At present, much of the expertise in both Web software development and Web server setup and maintenance is in District offices. Use of the Web for serving data and publications would be enhanced by providing TECHNICAL assistance to District offices. This would also help 'Web-poor' Districts so that there is not such a disparity between the "have's" and the "have-not's". AI: All CPAC members to comment to Richard Hollway (using e-mail to 'rah') on the WWW issues above, for further discussion at the September meeting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 14, 1996 Ingres Support: Currently contract negotiations are proceeding with Computer Associates to provide direct software support for Ingres (bypassing Data General), provide the transfer of Ingres software licenses to non-DG platforms used by USGS, and license all existing products. The contract would be renewable annually and may cost $260,000/year. This cost would be recovered from field offices. The following information on the negotiations was provided (by Tom Wood, 6/21/96) for further clarification... ----------------------------- This procurement is intended to provide divisionwide software maintenance of unlimited usage licenses for the following Ingres products: OpenIngres DBMS, OpenIngres Knowledge Management, OpenIngres Object Management, OpenIngres Query and Reporting Tools, OpenIngres Server Net, OpenIngres Windows 4GL/OpenRoad Development, OpenIngres VisionPro, OpenIngres Embedded SQL (C, Fortran), OpenIngres Replicator (OPTIONAL), OpenIngres Star (OPTIONAL). Maintenance services will include successor updates/patches to the software, revised software versions, and updates to documentation. It will include Ingres technical support via telephone to all WRD employees, although in practice there will be designated contacts within each major development group. Maintenance will also include the ability to transfer existing licenses between Contractor-supported hardware platforms at no additional cost to the Government. The major objectives of the procurement are: a. to continue software maintenance on the existing Ingres unlimited use software licenses for 1 year (beginning 10/1/96) with 4 optional years. b. to provide unlimited use access to Ingres development tools and optional unlimited use access to Ingres replication tools. c. to provide the ability to transfer existing Ingres software licenses from the Data General platform to other supported platforms as the need arises. d. to contract with a single vendor with a single procurement vehicle for the continued maintenance of all Ingres software licensed for use in WRD, as opposed to having multiple vendors and multiple procurement vehicles provide these services. ----------------------------- Recommendation: CPAC recommends that the contract should be signed if the negotiations are successful because the contract would: (1) allow for the porting of WRD-developed, Ingres-based software to other platforms and, (2) improve the quality of Ingres software support. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CPAC membership: Various proposals have been made to reduce and even increase the membership of the committee. The latest proposal is to include all four RCS on the committee. AI: A subgroup was formed (consisting of Brian Mrazik, Kathy Peter, Verne Schneider, and Graig McHendrie) to develop several alternative membership scenarios by August 15 for discussion at the September CPAC meeting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Unix and WWW security: In Nevada, cooperative agreements are made with entities that are sometimes competitors. Some cooperative agreements include use of WRD computer systems. There is insufficient knowledge in the field of how to secure Unix workstations, data files, data bases, and web servers from cooperators who have legitimate access to USGS computers. AI: The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will attempt to further define the nature of the problem and suggest security guidelines for the Unix operating system and WWW servers, and report back by the September meeting. The membership of the TAC is: David Boldt Pat Rael Daphne Chinn Richard Hollway Gail Kalen Shawn Noble Greg Senko Dan Winkless Greg Shank ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NWIS Redesign Strategy: o Initial approach is incremental revision of the converted NWIS-I software. o The basic questions are: (1) What are the increments? and (2) What software system should be the base for revision? NWIS is struggling with the proper data-base table design, and reviewing other hydrologic data-base systems to compare them to the NWIS-I capabilities and the NWIS-II critical requirements list. o The possibility of a complete redesign has not yet been discarded. o Workflows are being identified to use a models for the software o Reworking the critical requirements list o Enterprise modeling is not tightly connected to the workflow analysis and the functional requirements listing o Also examining features and design of alternate hydrologic data-base systems and exploring possible cooperative agreements for software development and sharing. o The redesign effort is not taking resources away from the conversion effort o NMD recommended additional expertise in large software development projects. PARTWIS will develop a proposal for a staffing and organization plan. PARTWIS will also be coordinating the development of a workplan. AI: NWIS will document the process being used to review the system requirements and present before the September meeting. AI: All CPAC members to submit review comments on the NWIS planning document provided by Alan Lumb. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Next Meetings: September 4 @ 09:00 -> September 6 @ 12:00 in Lawrence, KS Minutes to be taken by Dave Schultz December 16 @ 13:00 -> December 18 @ 16:00 in Menlo Park, CA Minutes to be taken by Steve Brady AI: Graig to assist with travel arrangements and invite the Regional Director ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Topics for Next Agenda: Rules for CPAC --> Visitor Policy --> Membership proposal from Mrazik subgroup --> Information to be supplied with agenda items o Report/Decision/Discussion ? o Business analysis for proposals National Computer Technology Meeting (NCTM) Proposal for G2 enhancements/conversion Proposal for WWW-based national hydrologic data base Proposal for discontinuing Amdahl-based hydrologic data bases Issues for support of the WWW Report from the Futures Committee TAC Unix security report Proposal for a Software Library PARTWIS report