[CFIC] Re: CFIC: Governance and Management
aaron at ucar.edu
Mon Jan 14 16:15:09 MST 2008
Lance Jones wrote:
> General comments:
> 1) The responsibility for final approval of policies isn't sufficiently
> clear. Although it makes sense that proposed policies can (and usually
> will) originate in the mgmt group, debate and final approval should
> happen at the governance group. This makes sense because...
> 2) The mgmt group as described essentially maps to CISL. There could
> easily be the perception of a conflict of interest in the combination of
> CISL being manager of, user of, and potentially policy decider of the
> colo spaces. Further...
I agree with this statement that development of policy usually does
originate in the management groups. Additionally it really should be
ratified by the governance group not the management group.
> 3) The perceived conflict can further be reduced by including some form
> of technical representation in the mgmt group from the various users of
> the space: NCAR, UOP, etc. In other words, the Gov group can have more
> confidence that the procedures, standards, and proposed policies have
> some significant level of consensus(*) across the organization.
Not quite sure what you mean here. Putting staff into a management group
that doesn't report to a supervisor and do the work is usually a recipe
for chaos. Is that what is meant here? As proposed the management group
is synonymous with an engineering group i.e. NETS, CSAC, F&A IT.
> Fourth page, second to last paragraph: who will be picking up 50% of the
> techs and operator salaries? What sort of monitoring, installation,
> removal will these personnel do, and of whose equipment?
It's not explicit but in the current ML29 room the "equipment" is
primarily infrastructure equipment. For us that means cabinets/racks,
power strips, cable management components, UPS, power distribution,
circuits, A/C equipment etc. The technicians also coordinate heavily
with PPS mechanics and electricians.
The wording however was left sufficiently open however because even
in the current ML29 room we have some "customers" internal to CISL
would rather have a technician mount their server hardware for them.
Same thing with operators, we already monitor remotely and could in this
instance actually reboot or intervene at the behest of a systems
administrator who asks us to do so.
For this to be clean from a funding perspective this becomes clearly
an overhead function and we should not be using CISL funds to provide
that service. However, there is likely not enough work to fund full
FTE's so this is an attempt to create a win-win.
> Pat Waukau wrote:
>> In a discussion with Shawn on Friday regarding the level of involvement
>> the ITC should play in a governance role for the computer collocation
>> facilities, we concluded that the ITC would be most effective in an
>> oversight role, but that the expectation that they would be responsible
>> for communicating information to the organization on facility details
>> and providing training is unrealistic. These activities would be best
>> served by the management group, who would be able to provide more accurate
>> and timely information. With this change in responsibilities, it also
>> seemed a natural step for the collocations management team to adopt the
>> current strategy wherein engineering groups that provide central services
>> are partnered with an advisory committee comprised of stakeholders.
>> That said I have revised the governance and management implementation
>> plan to incorporate these changes and have uploaded it to the Attachments
>> section on the Governance and Management Working Group page.
>> Ordinarily I would give you a longer lead time to respond, but given the
>> ITC meeting is tomorrow, I would appreciate at least your initial thoughts
>> on the revised document by mid-morning tomorrow.
>> Thanks, Pat
> CFIC mailing list
> CFIC at mailman.ucar.edu
More information about the CFIC