InCommon Technical Discussions

[Nick Roy <>]

When I was trying to sell R&S (and failing) on a campus I previously
worked at, at one point I talked to a director within the research VP
office who was involved with grant funding.  I asked for his help, and
also asked if I could work toward federating access to fastalane for our
researchers.  He told me that not only would he not help, but that under
no circumstances should I federate access to fastlane, because he wanted
to control access to that service on behalf of researchers.

The hurdles are daunting, and often somewhat incredible until you
experience them yourself.

Nick

On 3/30/17 9:45 AM, Steven Carmody wrote:
> I mostly agree with this proposal.
>
> I think the IC membership is made up of three constituencies:
>
> -- the previously identified two (campuses willing to support their
> researchers, "the other campuses" (the 300)
>
> -- campuses interested in the Cert Service, and having no interest in
> Federation. This is a separate topic.
>
> The previous effort to grow R&S IDP support from a low number to 100+
> required an intense one-on-one effort by IC Steering members. Von (and
> LIGO) supplied a list of "desired" campuses, and Steering members
> called CIOs they they knew whose campuses were on that list. It mostly
> worked (altho some CIOs did in fact say NO!).
>
> I find Scott K's statement "there are roughly 100 InCommon Participant
> campuses that could and would, if mandated, implement changes
> to make the trust fabric more scalable and simply more trusted" to be
> optimistic. I might say "with direct pressure from a CIO colleague,
> and the threat of shaming, many campus could and would ....".
>
> I can't avoid noticing that these 100+ campuses did NOT self-identify
> as needing R&S, even though many of them are large (and proud)
> research institutions. Just another bit of the damage from the
> disconnect between central IT and their researchers.
>
> And I also suspect that IC is NOT talking to the people on these 100+
> campuses who really care about this issue (does IC talk directly to
> the head of the campus Research Office ?).
>
> Lastly, if a project includes a researcher from one of "the 300",
> what's the recommendation ? They should use one of the non-advertised
> IDPoLR services ?
>
> On 3/30/17 9:40 AM, Cantor, Scott wrote:
>> On 3/30/17, 7:06 AM, 
>> "
>>  on
>> behalf of Scott Koranda" 
>> <
>>  on
>> behalf of 
>> >
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Yet a lot of energy and resources are spent attempting to motivate
>>> those 300 to operate like the 100, even though those 300
>>> fundamentally do not have the drivers that might push them to
>>> operate at the higher level.
>>>
>>> So my proposal is to stop trying.
>>
>> Independent of any technical direction, +1 to that assessment of
>> where our energy should be focused.
>>
>> -- ScottC
>>
>>
>>
>