Main Nav



--
Best Regards,
 
Scott Grissinger
704-898-4840

Comments

Message from venkiw@yahoo.com

 

 

From: Identity Management Constituent Group Discussion list [mailto:IDM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jim Dillon
Sent: 9-Dec-11 11:59 AM
To: IDM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [IDM] Fwd: [refeds] [IDM] Revised language for eduPersonAffiliation

 

Rodger,

 

I think you’ve captured a lot of what I was driving at when looking at the affiliation model.  The “adult” part makes me giggle.  Almost uncontrollably.

 

1. Faculty are not always payroll, not always resident, not always directly affiliated like staff.  (So in our case, we don’t always give “employees” money.  Employee may have more to do with alternate currencies such as benefits, or material responsibilities in some cases.)

2. Faculty demand staff like services and treatment regardless, and seldom is there any authority that disagrees.

3. It is possible that faculty may have less level of assurance control on the campus’ part than staff.  Our HR practices and Faculty practices do vary a good deal, starting with appointment letters and often ending in unusual employment-record types (0% appointments, adjoint, adjunct, etc.) that are not synonymous with any staff roles or relationships.

 

Thus they look and smell like employees (must use and protect resources, support or destroy goodwill by their behavior, have regulatory oversight considerations, typically do draw some form of compensation, almost without fail are recipients of some benefits, are of great concern to our state regulators, etc.) but resent the association “employee” at times.  In the end, the provisioning for us was identical, so the conclusion of an “employee” affiliation as a provisioning container seemed to just fall out.  I’m waiting to see the service case that is uniquely “faculty” – we don’t have one yet.  That said, I’m sure there are many potential federated partners that care very much about this distinction when it comes to authorizing services.  I often sniff an “appointment” source system in the wind, but shudder and hope that it was just yesterday’s lunch.  One of the clear “employee” elements is the need to manage discoverable work product, including primarily email.  That leaves us waffling on whether email should be provisioned at the “member” level or “employee” level of affiliation for staff and faculty.  So far all of our member cases get email, but perhaps not all imaginable “members” will have the same “discovery” and “work product” protections to worry about.  It could be we could provision their email differently if that proves out.

 

The other tool that drove me to this diagram was developing our POP.  What I said in words related to our implementation is what the first diagram actually represents.  There was a major “click” of enlightenment when I realized that “member of the community” and “member” affiliation were likely intended to be synonymous. That wasn’t initially obvious to me in the original spec.

 

Best regards,

 

Jim

-----------------University of Colorado------------------

Jim Dillon, CISA, CISSP

Program Director, OIT

Administrative Systems, Data Services, and Identity

jim.dillon@colorado.edu                303-735-5682

------------------------Boulder--------------------------

 

From: Identity Management Constituent Group Discussion list [mailto:IDM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hendricks,Rodger E
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 8:59 AM
To: IDM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [IDM] Fwd: [refeds] [IDM] Revised language for eduPersonAffiliation

 

I, too like the left-most diagram the best.  To us, “Employee” means:  “Faculty, Staff, or other, perhaps lesser, employment status”.  So, a full-time student who is a lab operator on a very part-time basis is an “Employee” but hardly rises to the level of “Staff”.

 

Very roughly:

 

Employee: we give you money on a regular basis.

Staff: the above, plus we expect you to act like an adult.

 

Faculty are a lot more complicated, in part because they’re sometimes paid by their home institution.  They’re paid for their work here, but not by us.

 

 

From: Identity Management Constituent Group Discussion list [mailto:IDM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jim Dillon
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:13 PM
To: Hendricks,Rodger E
Subject: Re: Fwd: [refeds] [IDM] Revised language for eduPersonAffiliation

 

Keith, Andrew, and all,

 

I’ve attached a diagram I used to change our viewpoint about the affiliation language.  I cut out some specifics, but hopefully the visuals are sufficient.

 

There are 3 diagrams – the first I think is optimal, the second shows what we have done historically in our model, and the third is more what we’ve done physically.

 

The distinction is that “member” is a container in which employee is a higher level container of staff and faculty, as the attributes that look “employee-like” typically belong to both of those affiliations.  This is somewhat at odds with what Andrew suggests below.  With this model, I don’t find it difficult to separate employee and staff/faculty problems, at least when viewed from a provisioning perspective.

 

Moving towards the column 1 perspective allows us to reduce our provisioning logic by 2/3rds at least in that it recognizes that “all members” are provisioned alike.  We actually have nothing that is provisioned only based on staff or faculty relationships, rather all of our current services can be accounted for by the member and employee containers.  The faculty and staff affiliations remain for the future or external services that require that distinction in order to provision appropriately.  We can have members that are neither faculty or staff, but all faculty and staff are both members and employees as well in this model.

 

Our previous model (physical, far right) required provisioning logic in every container, wasteful and duplicative. 

 

I simply offer this as hopefully insightful.  Coming up with this had us utilizing the new language proposed long before it was proposed! 

 

If nothing else, the modeling makes it clear that the standard expectation for us is for a person to typically have multiple affiliations from the get-go, not as an exception case!

 

Best regards,

 

Jim Dillon

-----------------University of Colorado------------------

Jim Dillon, CISA, CISSP

Program Director, OIT

Administrative Systems, Data Services, and Identity

jim.dillon@colorado.edu                303-735-5682

------------------------Boulder--------------------------

 

From: Identity Management Constituent Group Discussion list [mailto:IDM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Keith Hazelton
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:11 PM
To: IDM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [IDM] Fwd: [refeds] [IDM] Revised language for eduPersonAffiliation

 

Forwarded on behalf of Andrew Cormack

______________________

Begin forwarded message:

 

From: Andrew Cormack <Andrew.Cormack@ja.net>

Subject: RE: [refeds] Re: [IDM] Revised language for eduPersonAffiliation

Date: December 6, 2011 03:07:13 CST

To: Keith Hazelton <hazelton@doit.wisc.edu>, mace-dir <mace-dir@internet2.edu>, REFeds <refeds@terena.org>, Identity Management Constituent Group Discussion list <IDM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>

 

Keith
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. The text you have looks fine to me, but I'd like to propose one addition.

Would it be possible to call out the particular unreliability of "staff" and "employee", which our comparisons revealed are significantly worse than "faculty" and "student". For "faculty" and "student" I think there is general consensus on what sort of affiliation these represent, with maybe some quibbles around particular edge cases; for "staff" and "employee" different national terminologies (notably between the US and UK, so we can't even blame translation!) produce contradictory results for the whole class. For international activities, I suspect those two are at least as unreliable as "affiliate" and possibly worse because within countries the terms do have strong meaning.

So I'd suggest adding to your appended paragraph:

==
It is not feasible to attempt to reach broad-scale, precise and binding inter-institutional definitions of affiliations such as faculty and students. Organizations have a variety of business practices and institutional specific uses of common terms. Therefore each institution will decide the criteria for membership in each affiliation classification.

What is desirable is that a reasonable person should find an institution's use of the affiliation commonsensical.

In addition there are significant international differences in the literal meanings of the terms "staff" and "employee", which make those values particularly unreliable in any international context.
==

Cheers
Andrew

--
Andrew Cormack, Chief Regulatory Adviser, JANET(UK)
Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell, Didcot. OX11 0SG UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1235 822302
Blog: http://webmedia.company.ja.net/edlabblogs/regulatory-developments/

JANET, the UK's education and research network

JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG

Message from chris@redfinsolutions.com

subscribe
--
Christopher J. Wells
Member/Developer: Redfin Solutions, LLC
office: 908-4-DRUPAL / fax: 815.642.4600
chris@redfinsolutions.com
www.redfinsolutions.com
********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Message from rita_singleton@nshe.nevada.edu


********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Does anyone know why we’re getting this message? I never went to the site to unsubscribe so I’m puzzled.

 

Regards,

Karin Traverse

Project Manager-PMP

University of Colorado Boulder

303-735-5685

Karin.Traverse@Colorado.Edu

 

 

Karin - the entire list got this message because it was directed to the list at: Project@listserv.educause.edu.

Many people don't realize that to unsubscribe to a listserv you need to send the unsubscribe command to the list manager, not the list itself.

While I could give everyone the geeky tech command to use, the easiest way to unsubscribe is to:

Log into your Educause account at http://www.educause.edu 

Find the discussion group that you are a member of and click the "Manage" button on the right side.

On the next page click on the "My Membership" button

You can then scroll down and see all the lists subscribed to and various options for unsubscribing or changing the frequency of messages.




Sherri Yerk-Zwickl
Director of Project Management and Web & Mobile Services
Library and Technology Services, Lehigh University
shy2@lehigh.edu * 610-758-4009



********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Could you please subscribe me to this listserv….

 

Thanks,

joan

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joan M. Lesovitz

Director, Instructional Technology | Villanova University
800 Lancaster Ave | Technology Services Building | Villanova, PA 19085
Tel 610-519-7965 | Fax 610-519-5090 | joan.lesovitz@villanova.edu

 P Think before you print

CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential,
proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is
prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this email from your system.

 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

CC Digest - 7 May 2013 to 8 May 2013 (#2013-5)

 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Message from ehanley@concord-usa.com

AACC Community College Journal

Removed.

 

Xitracs Overview            Data Sheet

Xitracs Credentials         Data Sheet

Xitracs Programs             Data Sheet

Xitracs Planning               Data Sheet

Xitracs Standards            Data Sheet

 

Ed Hanley  Concord USA

2251 Perimeter Park Drive, Ste 10

Atlanta, GA 30341

770 200 7465 Ext 122

404 226 4271 Cell

678 578 4148 Fax

ehanley@concord-usa.com

 

Xitracs™ - the easy and affordable way to bring people and projects together

Compliance Reporting – Credentials Management – Strategic Planning – Program Review – Curriculum Mapping

Visit on the web at www.xitracs.com

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Good afternoon, For those of you wishing to manage subscriptions to the Security listserv, please visit the following link : http://www.educause.edu/discuss/discussion-groups-related-educause-progr... You may also go to the main discussion groups page and browse available topics (you will see a "Join" button if you aren't subscribed yet or a "Manage" button if you're currently subscribed): http://www.educause.edu/discuss Thank you, Valerie Valerie Vogel Program Manager EDUCAUSE Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good direct: 202.331.5374 | main: 202.872.4200 | twitter: @HEISCouncil | educause.edu From: Jim Furstenbrg > Reply-To: EDUCAUSE Listserv > Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:53 PM To: EDUCAUSE Listserv > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] subscribe Thank you. Jim Furstenberg |IT Security Analyst CISSP, C|EH "In GOD we trust, all others bring data." W. Edward Demmings _________________________________________________________ Ferris State University - National Security Agency Center of Excellence 330 Oak St | Big Rapids, MI 49307 Office: 231.591.5335 Mobile: 231.645.5821 EFax: 888.396.6269 Technical support or call 231-591-4822 local or toll free 877-779-4822 From: Robert Davis > To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU, Date: 06/04/2013 03:30 PM Subject: [SECURITY] subscribe Sent by: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv > ________________________________ Robert Davis Technical Support Specialist EDUCAUSE Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good 282 Century Place, Suite 5000, Louisville, CO 80027 direct: 303.544.5667 | main: 303.449.4430 | educause.edu
Message from jamesfurstenberg@ferris.edu


Thank you.

Jim Furstenberg |IT Security Analyst CISSP, C|EH

"In GOD we trust, all others bring data."    W. Edward Demmings
_________________________________________________________
Ferris State University  - National Security Agency Center of Excellence
330 Oak St  | Big Rapids, MI 49307
Office: 231.591.5335
Mobile: 231.645.5821
EFax: 888.396.6269
Technical support
or call 231-591-4822 local
or toll free 877-779-4822




From:        Robert Davis <rdavis@EDUCAUSE.EDU>
To:        SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU,
Date:        06/04/2013 03:30 PM
Subject:        [SECURITY] subscribe
Sent by:        The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv <SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>



 
 
Robert Davis Technical Support Specialist
 
EDUCAUSE
Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good

282 Century Place, Suite 5000, Louisville, CO 80027
direct: 303.544.5667 | main: 303.449.4430 | educause.edu
 
 
 

 

 

Robert Davis Technical Support Specialist

 

EDUCAUSE
Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good
282 Century Place, Suite 5000, Louisville, CO 80027
direct: 303.544.5667 | main: 303.449.4430 | educause.edu

 

 

 

CC Digest - 7 May 2013 to 8 May 2013 (#2013-5)

 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from teallen@stevenson.edu

CIO Digest - 29 Apr 2013 to 30 Apr 2013 - Special issue (#2013-112)

 

 

Message from barbara.taylor@dal.ca





On 2013-01-08, at 1:00 AM, IDM automatic digest system <LISTSERV@listserv.educause.edu> wrote:



Message from shields@purdue.edu

PORTALS Digest - 2 Oct 2013 to 24 Oct 2013 (#2013-16)

 

 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

This has been a great list and I’ve learned a lot but my role is changing. I’ve seen instructions pointing to the website to see how to unsubscribe but I can’t find anything other than people asking to unsubscribe. If doing it this way doesn’t work, can someone steer me to specific location on website where I can do this?

 

Thanks.

 

Patrick LaPorte

 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

http://listserv.educause.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A0=WIRELESS-LAN

Log in with your Educause account to unsubscribe.


--
Sincerely,

Dieter Van Acker, SSCP, MCTS, ITILv4F
IT Support Analyst
Desktop Support Tier 1, 2, and 3
Workgroup & Network Consulting (WNC)
University Information Technology Services (UITS)
PO Box 210073 | Tucson, AZ | 85721-0073
Phone: 520-621-8396
WNC Hotline: 520-621-3638
Email: dieter(at)email(dot)arizona(dot)edu
On Nov 15, 2013 4:58 AM, "Schneider, Bryan D" <bryan.schneider@mnsu.edu> wrote:
We are encouraged to use a P-card for all purchases other than those which require a service contract or RFP and for employee travel. There is significant cost savings on the business side for using P-cards rather than POs.



The business office sets daily and monthly limits based on each user. By default it's set at about $1000 per day and $5,000-$10,000 per month. For those that do a lot of purchasing, the limit can be raised. If a large purchase needs to be done, the limits can be increased temporarily. I've had mine increased to over $200,000 for equipment purchases.



We are encouraged to use the P-card for travel as well. Employees that travel rather routinely are issued P-cards but they can ONLY be used by the individual for travel and registration. For example, a supervisor can't pay for her employee's training registration or airfare. Departments are issued a P-card that can be used for this purpose, but if a card is issued to an individual, only that person's expenses are allowed on the card.



Information http://www.mnsu.edu/busoff/purchasingcard/



Inexpensive app purchases can either be charged to the P-card or submitted for employee expense reimbursement. Supervisors approve purchases.



Bryan Schneider
Assistant CIO & Director of Technology Services
Office of Information and Technology Services
MN State University, Mankato
(507) 389-5993


________________________________
From: EDUCAUSE Policy Discussion Listserv [POLICY-DISCUSSION@listserv.educause.edu] on behalf of Kara Zirkle [kzirkle1@GMU.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:55 AM
To: POLICY-DISCUSSION@listserv.educause.edu
Subject: Re: [POLICY-DISCUSSION] P-card policy

Just to add to Jane’s question about tablets and in class software that may breach security.  I’d be equally interested in anyone including anything in regard to accessibility (Section 508, WCAG 2.0) into the P-Card policy to cover the lower cost purchases.  We have had conversations about this topic and are in the process of pulling together information to include.  However, we also recently found out that not all Signature Authority individuals have P-Cards.  These individuals do not have to go through training like P-Card holders do, so I’d be interested in how other people may be approaching this group.

Regards,

Kara Zirkle
IT Accessibility Coordinator
Assistive Technology Initiative
George Mason University
Aquia Building, RM 238
Mail Stop: 6A11
Fairfax Campus
4400 University Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
Direct Line Phone: 703-993-9815
Main Office Phone: 703-993-4329
Fax: 703-993-4743
http://webaccessibility.gmu.edu<http://webaccessibility.gmu.edu/>
http://ati.gmu.edu<http://ati.gmu.edu/>
http://accessibility.gmu.edu<http://accessibility.gmu.edu/>

From: EDUCAUSE Policy Discussion Listserv [mailto:POLICY-DISCUSSION@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Rosenthal, Jane E.
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:23 AM
To: POLICY-DISCUSSION@listserv.educause.edu
Subject: Re: [POLICY-DISCUSSION] P-card policy

Hello all,
I’m interested if you allow the P-card for purchases such as Applications for tablets?  Or for tools used in teaching that may be apps or small dollar items that lead to issues around Privacy?  These are often low cost but with the potential to have student data leaks.
Curious if anyone has controls through the P-card policy, through another policy, or not at all?

I’m going to cross-post this with the CPO group as I think it might have some cross-pollination that might be fun.

Thanks for your thoughts.


Jane Rosenthal
Director | Privacy Office
Custodian of Public Records
785.864.9528 | Fax 785.864.4463
jer@ku.edu<mailto:jer@ku.edu> | www.privacy.ku.edu<http://www.privacy.ku.edu/>


Please consider this as a KU business communication and handle according to policy as it may contain confidential or sensitive information.  If this message was sent to you in error, please accept my apologies, delete the message and any attachments from your device or browser and notify me of the error.
Prior to printing this message, please consider the environment and choose sustainability.
Thank you.





From: EDUCAUSE Policy Discussion Listserv [mailto:POLICY-DISCUSSION@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Michele Gross
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:17 AM
To: POLICY-DISCUSSION@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:POLICY-DISCUSSION@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [POLICY-DISCUSSION] P-card policy

Good morning Scott,
Our PCard operation has been in existence for almost 20 years.  Here are the specifics:
Transaction limit:  $2,499
Daily limit: Not specified
Monthly limit: $10,000
Use of card for catering: Allowed.  If at a hotel, the person must request authorization in advance to lift the hotel restriction.
Use of card for hotels: Not allowed.
Current number of cards: ~5400
Dollars expended through card method: $65M annually
Transactions annually:  282,000
I hope this helps.  Good luck!
Michele


********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Message from morth@iastate.edu


 

 

____________________

Diane Sempler

Assistant Director, Academic Technologies

Office of the CIO

Cornell University

607-255-5570

 




Message from cathy.oliva@vu.edu.au

 

This email, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. It is confidential and may contain personal information or be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure, reproduction or storage of it is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender via return email and delete it from your system immediately. Victoria University does not warrant that this email is free from viruses or defects and accepts no liability for any damage caused by such viruses or defects.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Message from bjones@ur.ua.edu

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Close
Close


Annual Conference
September 29–October 2
Register Now!

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

Digital Badges
Member recognition effort
Earn yours >

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.