Core User Directory Project Working Party
Minutes of the Core Directory Project Working Party - Meeting 13
There was a meeting at 3 pm on Thursday, 16 July, in the Access grid room at OeRC.
Present: Mike Fraser (chair), Lou Burnard, Jonathan Ward, Beth Crutch, Maureen MacNaboe, Rob Hebron, Tony Brett, John Ireland, Heather Skevington, Alana Davies, Mike Heaney, Jim Davies, Miranda Llewellyn (minutes) and Deborah Atsoparthis (for information).
Apologies: Paul Jeffreys, Ilana Veitch, Emma Potts, Lynn Waddington, Neil Jefferies, Bernard Handley, Ann Gavin, Chris Cattermole, Tom Payne, Tim Shaw, Anne Bowtel, Mirjam Siderius, Dave Price.
2. Minutes of the last meeting (23 June) and matters arising
The minutes were confirmed and the actions completed. There were no matters arising. Heather Skevington later commented on the following paragraph: 'The Congregation database worked fine but it did not give information for staff records - there is a need to know the grades of members of staff. This was restricted in the current version due to security but this will need to be changed for the future. (Lou confirmed that this could be changed for the future. Mike suggested that a policy of use should be imposed where data were sensitive.' Heather clarified that it is for local systems to hold the attributes.
3. Final Reports from Evaluators
- Mike Heaney felt the service should include historical data. Lou confirmed that this was not available with the pilot data but agreed this would be desirable in any future service.
- Maureen commented on using images within the CUD service. A colleague had looked into using images for the OSS but had encountered an issue with permissions. Lou confirmed that an individual would be asked to give permission for the use of their image when they completed their initial forms for the University.
- Rob Hebron reported back on feedback from Christopher Hoskins. He found that the CUD did not include some affiliation data that he needed. For example St Peters’ College has an ad-hoc mailing list of contacts but they are not members of the University. It was agreed that this is not something for the CUD to take on.
- Beth felt that Rob's work was impressive, especially considering the data available.
- Heather agreed that the data and matching was well done. She felt that another area to consider was the management of the system and its integration.
- Jim Davies commented that the consistency of the data was not the main issue. He was concerned that people would rely on data and use it as a proxy for something else.
4. Report and Presentation from ICTF workshop
Lou and Rob gave a presentation (PDF version of
slides now available at http://www.ict.ox.ac.uk/odit/projects/coreuser/Pilot/CUD-2009-07-16.pdf).
The following comments arose during discussion.
- Jim Davies questioned the
statement - "Is the data reliably available from an
authoritative source?" Lou confirmed that there are
three types of data:
(1) a data attribute which we know exists but we do not know where it is,
(2) a data attribute - we know where it is and just need to retrieve it,
(3) a data attribute which is there already.
- The group discussed where the report will go and who will need to consider the high level policy decisions. Mike confirmed that the Project Sponsor (Paul Jeffreys, Director of IT) will report to the PRAC ICT Sub-committee on the project. Further, OUCS has an Access Management strategy, as part of its strategic plan, and the CUD project features within that strategy. The CUD pilot project and any successor service is a fundamental component of the continuum from identity to access management.
- Alana advised that the report for the PRAC ICT Sub-committee (which may also go to Council for funding) needed to be concise - 2/3 pages and include an executive summary. The group agreed that they would like to see the report which was to go forward and approve it.
- Heather commented that the report should show due diligence - that other options have been considered. Mike and Lou explained the background to the CUD project and that due diligence had been carried at the initial stages leading to the building of the CUD pilot. The pilot service is made of existing packages linked together to fulfil the requirements laid out by the University. Beth confirmed that Rob had worked with the ICT Support Team which researched the area well and already evaluated the market with similar criteria.
The group agreed that the CUD service needed support from the top – this meant authorisation from the appropriate body and buy-in from the bottom up (those that would actually use the service). It was agreed that Lou would produce a report on the project, based on the slides used during the meeting and on previous discussions within the group. The report would be delivered and authorisation gained for the new service. Lobbying to promote the service would follow where needed. Mike confirmed that the report should go to the next meeting of the PRAC ICT Sub-committee which would meet in Michalemas term. Lou would therefore circulate a draft report to the working party, for comment in September.
Mike thanked the working party and Lou and Rob for their work on the CUD pilot service.