xxxxxxxx August 10, 1977 Professor Frederick P. Brooks Department of Computer Science University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Dear Professor Brooks: Professor Feigenbaum asked me to send you the attached memo from Mike Roberts. He would like to know how you want to handle the SCIP review. Mr. Zuendt responded and can attend the meeting October 16-18. Mr. John Young responded "Even these dates are a compro- mise in my schedule. 10/16-10/17 only." Sincerely, Carolyn Tajnai Secretary to E. A. Feigenbaum Professor and Chairman
Transcript
xxxxxxxx
August 10, 1977
Professor Frederick P. BrooksDepartment of Computer ScienceUniversity of North CarolinaChapel Hill, NC 27514
Dear Professor Brooks:
Professor Feigenbaum asked me to send youthe attached memo from Mike Roberts. Hewould like to know how you want to handlethe SCIP review.
Mr. Zuendt responded and can attend themeeting October 16-18. Mr. John Youngresponded "Even these dates are a compro-mise in my schedule. 10/16-10/17 only."
Sincerely,
Carolyn TajnaiSecretary toE. A. FeigenbaumProfessor and Chairman
Subject Agenda for Computer Science Advisory Committee
Chuck asked me to drop you a line about the agenda for the next meetingof the Committee in October. I have looked over our paperwork from lastfall, including the CSAC complaint, "The committee did not get a roundedview of SCIP's effectiveness, and hopes that the presentations will bebetter planned next time".
There are two aspects to consider in looking at this year's program.One is whether to change the format in which SCIP was allocated all ofMonday morning, and the other is the content of what we present in what-ever block of time is assigned.
Given the short time of the visit, and the breadth of activities theCSAC is asked to review, we have no problems with the allocation of onemorning to SCIP. However, it is conceivable that the Committee mightwant to consider going back to the format of earlier years in which sub-committees spent more time on specific areas. Fred Brooks, as a long-term member of the group probably could give us an informed view.
With respect to the content of the SCIP presentation, here are some ideas,not necessarily in priority order. As background, the members of theCSAC routinely receive the computing bulletins we publish, and also willhave our annual report to review before they arrive.
1. Campus Facility 370/168 performance . This was an item theyexpressed interest in last year. We have accomplished a greatdeal in the intervening year and also know more about what isgoing on in the machine.
2. Long-range planning. There is a document in preparation, andwe are developing a thirty minute brief for use with variousUniversity management groups . It could be repeated for theCommittee. This was also an action item from last year.
3. SCIP user groups. There is now something called the "AcademicWorking Group", which meets and presents its recommendations tothe head of the Campus Facility. Ms. Gloria Guth has been thechairperson of that group, and could summarize its views forthe Committee. This is a third item from last year.
4. Future software architecture. There is substantial debate inthe industry about whether IBM's large-scale machines will reallyuse MVS, or whether VM will emerge as the system of choice. Ourpeople at SLAC have spent a lot of time in this area and couldgive an interesting report .
<' # *
Ed Feigenbaum 2
of a computer building to be located in the Jordan Quad, andcould give a rundown on the building and the general plan tolocate all of our main campus activities in the Jordan Quadafter CSD moves to the main Quad.
or without our views on a development plan for distributed processing for the University which are also contained in theplanning document.
7. Review of ADP applications development. Both external consult-ants and the University Vice-Presidents have been looking atquestions of priority, benefits, and costs relative to invest-ments in administrative computing applications. We could givea status report on the findings and conclusions as of October.
These items probably fill up a three hour morning block twice over, so we canafford to be selective in choosing those of greatest interest.
MMR:bbcc : W. Miller
C. Dickens
5. New building. We are proceeding with architectural design
6. Extension to computer networks at Stanford. This is includedin item 2 above, but could be isolated as a special topic, with
