zilongwang/ReadingBank huggingface dataset:
A work for hire includes a musical work where a composer was hired – per a verbal agreement -- as an independent contractor for a lyricist and the two made a song. A joint work is one in which one or more authors intend to create an interdependent or inseparable work; any one author can exploit the entire work but must account to the other joint authors for profits. Part II. Short Essay Your client, Chef Jen, knows a lot about the food industry and tracks trends. The latest trend is “pop-up dining,” and a handful of (about 3) articles have been published on the trend. With pop-up dining, customers buy tickets in advance, at the average price of $98 per ticket. The dining experience can be anywhere and is a one-night event (as compared to an on-going restaurant establishment). The one common theme is creativity. As for locations, they can be as diverse as vacant sofa warehouses, parking garages, trains, old churches, basements, and theatres. Food usually showcases a chef who is getting name recognition. The dinners often involve experiential dining, which might mean that the diners participate in making the meal or forcing everyone to switch seats and engage in ice breakers or just a new dining experience. Chef Jen noticed that Google Trends shows a surge in searches for “Pop Up Restaurant” and ran a search in TESS to show that POP UP RESTAURANT is not registered, although there is a registration for THIS IS NOT A POP-UP for restaurant services, which is the only mark on the PTO register that is anywhere close. Chef Jen would like to apply to register POP-UP RESTAURANT and see how it goes. If she gets a registration, she would like to use it to earn revenue through licensing these single-experience dining events to use her mark. She would have her own events she would have every month or so called POP UP RESTAURANT. If she gets licensees to sign on, she will allow them to use the mark and they will all have a central reservations website that she will operate. The licensees would come up with their own locations, themes, menus, and experiences, so long as they were of her same (high) level of quality and were creative. Please describe any ethical implications you see with this plan. Please state whether the examining attorney is likely to approve this mark for publication and describe why or why not.
FREQUENCY CODES AND DUE DATES: A – Within five (5) calendar days after the event, or as specified. F – Final; within 90 calendar days after expiration or termination of the award. Y – Yearly; within 90 calendar days after the end of the annual reporting period. S – Semiannually; within 30 days after end of the reporting period. Q – Quarterly; within 30 calendar days after the end of the quarterly reporting period. Y180 – Yearly; within 180 calendar days after the close of the recipient’s fiscal year. O – Other: See instructions for further details. EERE Special Instructions:
FRSA Fundraising Revenue Sharing Agreement An Agreement between the CP and EDAs for sharing revenues. Fund GPC Fund The legal entity that is accountable for all finances of the CP. GLI Guaranteed Liveable Income Comprehensive System of Liveable Income. Also known as a Basic Income. GG Global Greens A world-wide community of Green organizations. GM General Meeting A meeting of all the Party members. GOTV Get Out The Vote A strategy to make sure all known Green members/supporters/sympathizers vote. GPC The Green Party of Canada A registered political organization according to the CEA. GRIMES Green Riding Information Management Electoral System A program for telephone canvassing. ILC International Liaison Committee The team that liaises with other Greens in the Americas and Global Green community to promote Canada’s perspective and act as the key communications channel -- Motion A proposal to add, modify, or delete a Constitutional clause, Directive or Policy. Note: Other proposals may be brought forward at a BGM/GM, such as a procedural Motion, that do not lead to a Resolution. MC Management Committee replaced by Exec. MP Elected Member of Parliament A member (of the GPC) who has been elected to a parliament in accordance with the CEA. NOTA None Of The Above A required choice on a Green ballot. OAC Ombuds and Appeals Committee A arms-length committee that facilitates the settlement of disputes and conflicts within the Party. P/TA Provincial/Territorial Association An association of a group within the Party that, once approved, can raise and spend funds to further GPC goals at the local level. P/TR Provincial/Territorial Representative A person elected at the BGM or appointed to represent a particular P/TO.
21.6 However, the employer is not required to disclose confidential or commercially sensitive information to the relevant employees. 21.7 The employer must give prompt and genuine consideration to matters raised about the major change by the relevant employees. 21.8 If a term in this agreement provides for a major change to production, program, organisation, structure or technology in relation to the enterprise of the employer, the requirements set out in paragraph (21.2)(a) and subclauses (21.3) and (21.5) are taken not to apply. 21.9 In this term, a major change is likely to have a significant effect on employees if it results in: (a) the termination of the employment of employees; or (b) major change to the composition, operation or size of the employer’s workforce or to the skills required of employees; or (c) the elimination or diminution of job opportunities (including opportunities for promotion or tenure); or (d) the alteration of hours of work; or (e) the need to retrain employees; or (f) the need to relocate employees to another workplace; or (g) the restructuring of jobs. Change to regular roster or ordinary hours of work 21.10 For a change referred to in paragraph (1)(b): (a) the employer must notify the relevant employees of the proposed change; and (b) subclauses (11) to (15) apply. 21.11 The relevant employees may appoint a representative for the purposes of the procedures in this term.
must then give prompt and genuine consideration to the matters raised by the employees before implementing the changes. The clause in the template is the model clause which is laid down in the federal industrial laws. If the agreement does not include this term the will make a note on the agreement when it approves it that the model clause is included. NOTE (20) SIGNATURES Enterprise agreements are ‘approved’ when a majority (51%) of those who cast a valid vote, have voted in favour of the agreement. The vote can be by ballot or by electronic means. All of the employees or a representative(s) of the employees can sign enterprise agreements. The signing page should also include the full name and address of each person signing the agreement. NOTE (20.1) REPRESENTATION CLAUSE If an employee representative(s) signs the enterprise agreement, the signing page of the agreement should explain how the representative has authority to sign on behalf of the employees. The template has a signing clause which must be used if an employee representative is signing on behalf of the other employees.
7 Identification & Authentication [IA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 8 Incident Response [IR-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 9 Maintenance [MA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 10 Media Protection [MP-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 11 Physical & Environmental Protection [PE-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 12 Personnel Security [PS-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 13 Risk Assessment [RA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 14 System & Services Acquisition [SA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 15 System & Communications Protection [SC-1] Policy: Procedure(s):
CSPs must establish their own set of Policies and Procedures (P&Ps). They cannot be inherited from a leveraged system, nor can they be provided by the customer. Any exceptions and/or missing policy and procedure elements must be explained in Table 4-10 below. Table 4-9. Policies and Procedures # Family Policy Procedure Title Version and Date Yes No Yes No 1 Access Control [AC-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 2 Awareness & Training [AT-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 3 Audit & Accountability [AU-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 4 Security Assessment & Authorization [CA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 5 Configuration Management [CM-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 6 Contingency Planning [CP-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 7 Identification & Authentication [IA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 8 Incident Response [IR-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 9 Maintenance [MA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 10 Media Protection Policy: Procedure(s):
5 Configuration Management [CM-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 6 Contingency Planning Policy: Procedure(s): 7 Identification & Authentication [IA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 8 Incident Response [IR-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 9 Maintenance [MA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 10 Media Protection [MP-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 11 Physical & Environmental Protection [PE-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 12 Personnel Security [PS-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 13 Risk Assessment [RA-1] Policy: Procedure(s):
Lead Assessor’s Signature: X_______________________________ Date: _______________ <Lead Assessor’s Name> <3PAO Name>
Adds a unique or alternative implementation of any of the security controls as these are captured in the System Security Plan, this is a Significant Change and must be added to the system via the FedRAMP Significant Change process or during the next annual assessment. The 3PAO should consider the following for dialogue, when evaluating the overall readiness of a Cloud Service Offering feature or service to be onboarded: Overall alignment of the new feature or service with the FedRAMP and National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) definition of cloud computing, according to NIST SP 800-145 Whether the feature or service remediates and/or introduces mitigations to current vulnerabilities Observed strengths and weaknesses of the service or feature implementation Clearly defined CSP and customer responsibilities related to the new service/feature within the system to which it is being added Overall maturity level relative to the system type, size, and complexity and how that relates to the new service onboarding. IMPORTANT: For this new Cloud Service Offering Onboarding effort, it is imperative that the new feature or service to be onboarded lies within the <Cloud Service Offering Name> authorization boundary. Inaccuracies regarding the new feature or service onboarding within the New Cloud Service Offering Onboarding Feature Request may give authorizing officials and FedRAMP grounds for disallowing any further services onboarding, removing a vendor from FedRAMP, and disciplinary actions initiated against the 3PAO as per the guidelines set by FedRAMP. Document Revision History Date Page(s) Description Author
Document Revision History Date Description Author 02/18/2015 Publish Date FedRAMP PMO 09/01/2015 Clarifications and format updates FedRAMP PMO 10/21/2016 Instructions for the new Integrated Inventory Template Section 2.3; Operational Requirements – False Positive Updates to Table 2 – POA&M Items Column Information Description and Section 2.3 FedRAMP PMO Questions about FedRAMP or this document should be directed to . For more information about FedRAMP, visit the website at . Table of Contents
4 Security Assessment & Authorization [CA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 5 Configuration Management [CM-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 6 Contingency Planning [CP-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 7 Identification & Authentication [IA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 8 Incident Response [IR-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 9 Maintenance [MA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 10 Media Protection Policy: Procedure(s): Physical & Environment Protection [PE-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 12 Personnel Security Policy: Procedure(s): 13 Risk Assessment [RA-1] Policy: Procedure(s): 14 System & Services Acquisition [SA-1] Policy: Procedure(s):
Prepared for Identification of Cloud Service Provider <insert logo> Organization Name Street Address Suite/Room/Building City, State Zip Template Revision History Date Page(s) Description Author 06/06/2014 Major revision for SP800-53 Revision 4. Includes new template and formatting changes. FedRAMP PMO
A – Results of the security test case procedures shall be recorded directly in each respective workbook. The workbook must be attached. B – Instruction: CSPs must attach a file containing the plan or include the plan in this Appendix. Delete this instruction from your final version of this document. C – Instruction: If applicable, attachments must include penetration testing rules of engagement, penetration testing methodology, and the sampling methodology used in testing. Delete this instruction from your final version of this document. List of Attachments:
T-19 Hurricane E A category 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 land falling hurricane could impact the facilities that house the information systems. Destruction Denial of Service T-20 Malicious Software P Software that damages a system such a virus, Trojan, or worm. Modification or Destruction Denial of Service T-21 Phishing Attack P Adversary attempts to acquire sensitive information such as usernames, passwords, or SSNs, by pretending to be communications from a legitimate/trustworthy source. Typical attacks occur via email, instant messaging, or comparable means; commonly directing users to web sites that appear to be legitimate sites, while actually stealing the entered information. Disclosure Modification or Destruction Denial of Service T-22 Power Interruptions E Power interruptions may be due to any number of reasons such as electrical grid failures, generator failures, uninterruptable power supply failures (e.g., spike, surge, brownout, or blackout). Denial of Service T-23 Procedural Error U An error in procedures could result in unintended consequences. Disclosure Modification or Destruction Denial of Service T-24 Procedural Violations P Violations of standard procedures. Disclosure Modification or Destruction Denial of Service T-25 Resource Exhaustion U An errant (buggy) process may create a situation that exhausts critical resources preventing access to services. Denial of Service T-26 Sabotage P Underhand interference with work. Modification or Destruction Denial of Service T-27 Scavenging P Searching through disposal containers (e.g., dumpsters) to acquire unauthorized data. Disclosure T-28 Severe Weather E Naturally occurring forces of nature could disrupt the operation of an information system by freezing, sleet, hail, heat, lightning, thunderstorms, tornados, or snowfall. Destruction Denial of Service
System Security Plan Prepared by Identification of Organization that Prepared this Document Organization Name Street Address Suite/Room/Building City, State Zip Prepared for Identification of Cloud Service Provider Organization Name Street Address Suite/Room/Building City, State Zip Record of Changes Date Description 10/21/2016 Removed tables in Sec 15.12 FedRAMP Laws and Regulations Removed revision history tables in all of Sec 15 Removed Acronyms - see FedRAMP Master Acronyms and Glossary resource document Added PTA to Sec 15.4 PTA and PIA Added E-Authentication to Sec 15.3 Added FIPs to Sec 15.10 FIPS 199 Changed Inventory instruction and guidance Sec 10 and Attachment 13 Removed chapter numbers from Attachments Removed 3 questions from Sec 2.3 E-Authentication Determination
Planned Alternative implementation Not applicable Control Origination (check all that apply): Service Provider Corporate Service Provider System Specific Service Provider Hybrid (Corporate and System Specific) Configured by Customer (Customer System Specific) Provided by Customer (Customer System Specific) Shared (Service Provider and Customer Responsibility) Inherited from pre-existing FedRAMP Authorization for , SI-2 What is the solution and how is it implemented? Part a Part b Part c Part d SI-3 Malicious Code Protection (L) (M) The organization: Employs malicious code protection mechanisms at information system entry and exit points to detect and eradicate malicious code; Updates malicious code protection mechanisms whenever new releases are available in accordance with organizational configuration management policy and procedures; Configures malicious code protection mechanisms to: Perform periodic scans of the information system [FedRAMP Assignment: at least weekly] and real-time scans of files from external sources at [FedRAMP Assignment: to include endpoints] as the files are downloaded, opened, or executed in accordance with organizational security policy; and [FedRAMP Assignment: to include alerting administrator or defined security personnel] in response to malicious code detection; and Addresses the receipt of false positives during malicious code detection and eradication and the resulting potential impact on the availability of the information system. SI-3 Control Summary Information Responsible Role: Parameter SI-3(c)(1)-1:
CA-5 Additional FedRAMP Requirements and Guidance: Requirement: Plan Of Action & Milestones (POA&M)s must be provided at least monthly. CA-5 Control Summary Information Responsible Role: Parameter CA-5(b): Implementation Status (check all that apply): Implemented Partially implemented Planned Alternative implementation Not applicable Control Origination (check all that apply): Service Provider Corporate Service Provider System Specific Service Provider Hybrid (Corporate and System Specific) Configured by Customer (Customer System Specific) Provided by Customer (Customer System Specific) Shared (Service Provider and Customer Responsibility) Inherited from pre-existing FedRAMP Authorization for , CA-5 What is the solution and how is it implemented? Part a Part b CA-6 Security Authorization (L) (M) (H) The organization: Assigns a senior-level executive or manager as the authorizing official for the information system; Ensures that the authorizing official authorizes the information system for processing before commencing operations; and Updates the security authorization [FedRAMP Assignment: in accordance with OMB A-130 requirements or when a significant change occurs]. CA-6c Additional FedRAMP Requirements and Guidance: Guidance: Significant change is defined in NIST Special Publication 800-37 Revision 1, Appendix F (). The service provider describes the types of changes to the information system or the environment of operations that would impact the risk posture. The types of changes are approved and accepted by the JAB/AO.
Service Provider Corporate Service Provider System Specific Service Provider Hybrid (Corporate and System Specific) Provided by Customer (Customer System Specific) Shared (Service Provider and Customer Responsibility) Inherited from pre-existing FedRAMP Authorization for , IA-8 (1) What is the solution and how is it implemented? IA-8 (2) Control Enhancement (L) (M) (H) The information system accepts only FICAM-approved third-party credentials. IA-8 (2) Control Summary Information Responsible Role: Implementation Status (check all that apply): Implemented Partially implemented Planned Alternative implementation Not applicable Control Origination (check all that apply): Service Provider Corporate Service Provider System Specific Service Provider Hybrid (Corporate and System Specific) Provided by Customer (Customer System Specific) Shared (Service Provider and Customer Responsibility) Inherited from pre-existing FedRAMP Authorization for , IA-8 (2) What is the solution and how is it implemented? IA-8 (3) Control Enhancement (L) (M) (H) The organization employs only FICAM-approved information system components in [Assignment: organization-defined information systems] to accept third-party credentials. IA-8 (3) Control Summary Information Responsible Role: Parameter IA-8(3):
analyses of the associated changes, and reporting the security state of the system. CSPs must report on this program to Agency AOs to continue using their security authorization. FedRAMP provides guidance on how agencies must continuously monitor authorized systems for continued use and management of risk. FedRAMP Tailored provides specialized monitoring procedures targeted at the FedRAMP Tailored Baseline set of controls. Appendix D contains the FedRAMP Tailored Continuous Monitoring Requirements.
Interview a sample of organizational personnel with information system maintenance responsibilitiesfor further evidence that the mechanisms and configurations are being applied. MA-4 (2) Examine security plan for evidence that the plan includes policies and procedures for the establishment and use of nonlocal maintenance and diagnostic connections for the information system. MA-5 Examine information system maintenance policy, procedures addressing maintenance personnel, security plan, or other relevant documents for the process established for maintenance personnel authorization. Interview a sample of organizational personnel with information system maintenance responsibilitiesfor further evidence of a maintenance process. Examine maintenance authorizations associated with the process for a list of authorized maintenance organizations or personnel. Examine the maintenance process for the measures to be employed to ensure that personnel performing maintenance on the information system have the required access authorizations. Examine the process for non-escorted maintenance personnel who do not possess the required access authorizations to perform information system maintenance without supervision. Examine the process for the designated organizational personnel with required access authorizations and technical competence deemed necessary to supervise information system maintenance performed by the designated maintenance personnel. Examine access authorizations for a sample of maintenance personnel identified in maintenance records for the information system for evidence that the measures are being applied to ensure personnel performing maintenance on the information system have the required access authorizations. Examine maintenance records for information system maintenance performed by maintenance personnel for evidence that the designated organizational personnel supervise information system maintenance when maintenance personnel do not possess the required access authorizations. Interview a sample of organizational personnel with information system maintenance responsibilitiesfor further evidence that the measures are being applied to ensure personnel performing maintenance on the information system have the required access authorizations. Interview a sample of organizational personnelfor further evidence that these individuals have the required access authorizations and technical competence deemed necessary to supervise information system maintenance performed by the maintenance personnel.
Executive Summary This document details the System Security Plan (SSP) for the <Information System Name> security controls. This System Security Plan was written in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-18, Revision 1, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Information Technology Systems. <Company Name> is a <privately/publicly> owned company headquartered in <City, State>. Completion of this SSP, which describes how U.S. federal information will be safeguarded, is a requirement of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources, and Public Law 100-235, the Computer Security Act of 1987. Document Revision History Date Description Version of System Author 05/17/2012 Initial Publication N/A FedRAMP Office 06/06/2012 Changed Numbering in Instruction Statement §9.3. N/A FedRAMP Office 06/13/2012 Formatting AC-17(7). N/A FedRAMP Office 06/18/2012 Updated RA-5a. N/A FedRAMP Office 06/18/2012 Added RA-5(5). N/A FedRAMP Office 7/23/2012 Table of Contents Updated; Added Instruction to §9.3; Revised Signature Pages; Revised Tables 6-1 and 6-2; Updated Instruction for §7.0; Updated Instruction for §9.4. N/A FedRAMP Office 07/25/2012 Removed CP-9d. N/A FedRAMP Office 10/15/2012 Revised formatting for CM-3(g); Added two rows (h and i) to IA-5 table on p. 185. N/A FedRAMP Office 12/5/2012 Part c removed from CM-2(5). Revised AC-16 to include missing text. N/A FedRAMP Office
Table 11-1. System Interconnections CSP IP Address and Interface External Organization Name and IP Address of System External Point of Contact and Phone Number Connection Security (IPSec VPN, SSL, Certificates, Secure File Transfer etc.) Data Direction (incoming, outgoing, or both) Information Being Transmitted Ports or Circuit #
Thursday August 12, 2010, Morning: “How can policy help prevent bullying?” 8:30 – 8:40 Welcome, review of yesterday, overview of today’s session 8:40- 9:20-Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli Introduced by Mary Lou Leary, Principal Deputy, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs 9:20 – 10:00 – Assistant Secretary of Education Russlynn Ali Introduced by Assistant Deputy Secretary Kevin Jennings, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools 10:00 – 11:15 Governance Panel Moderator: Kara McDonagh, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of Justice PANEL PARTICIPANTS: Jim Dillon Former Principal Jack Barnes Superintendant Sullivan County Schools, Tennessee Ryan Roemerman Iowa Pride Network & Amy J. Williamson Iowa Department of Education Ken Seeley, Ed.D. President, National Center for School Engagement 11:15 – 11:30 BREAK “Where do we go from here?” 11:30 – 12:15 Breakout Groups (Facilitated Discussion) 12:15 – 12:45 Large Group Discussion: Call to Action for Organizations, Researchers, and Federal Partners 12:45 – 1:00 A Federal Call to Action, Assistant Deputy Secretary Kevin Jennings, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools Wednesday August 11, Morning “What do we know?” 8:30 – 9:00 Registration 9:00 – 9:15 Opening video 9:15 – 9:45 Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan Introduced by Assistant Deputy Secretary Kevin Jennings, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. US Department of Education Arne Duncan was nominated to be Secretary of Education by Barack Obama and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2009. In his confirmation hearings, Duncan called education "the most pressing issue facing America," adding that "preparing young people for success in life is not just a moral obligation of society" but also an "economic imperative." "Education is also the civil rights issue of our generation," he said, "the only sure path out of poverty and the only way to achieve a more equal and just society." Duncan expressed his commitment to work under the leadership of President Obama and with all those involved in education "to enhance education in America, to lift our children and families out of poverty, to help our students learn to contribute to the civility of our great
Iowa Code §280.28 (2007) Prohibits bullying and harassment by employees, students, volunteers Basedd on 17 protectedd categories Requires schools to adopt a policy that defines consequences and procedures for investigating incidents Requires data collection and reporting Safe Schools Law was an unfunded mandate You Can’t Mandate What Matters You Can t Mandate What Matters 1993) change new skills, behavior, beliefs Grassroots effort has helped to shape state policy
Section 2 – Career Aspirations What are your career aspirations over the next 3 years? Summarise how you will contribute to your department / school / centre / campus plans over the next 3 years? Section 3 – 3 Year Goals Research: [enter your work goal here] Strategies What are your strategies and what development and/or support do you require to achieve your goal? Achievement Indicators What annual indicators will demonstrate that you have achieved your goal? Actual annual achievements To be completed prior to the end-of-year review.
Section 3 – 3 Year Goals Education: [enter your work goal here] Strategies What are your strategies and what development and/or support do you require to achieve your goal? Achievement Indicators What annual indicators will demonstrate that you have achieved your goal? Actual annual achievements To be completed prior to the end-of-year review. Section 3 – 3 Year Goals Service: [enter your work goal here] Strategies What are your strategies and what development and/or support do you require to achieve your goal? Achievement Indicators What annual indicators will demonstrate that you have achieved your goal? Actual annual achievements* To be completed prior to the end-of-year review. Note: please copy and paste more 3 Year Work Goal tables as required.
Section 5 – Leadership Education Leadership: [enter your work goal here] Strategies What are your strategies and what development and/or support do you require to achieve your goal? Achievement Indicators What annual indicators will demonstrate that you have achieved your goal? Actual annual achievements* To be completed prior to the end-of-year review. Section 5 – Leadership Service Leadership: [enter your work goal here] Strategies What are your strategies and what development and/or support do you require to achieve your goal? Achievement Indicators What annual indicators will demonstrate that you have achieved your goal? Actual annual achievements* To be completed prior to the end-of-year review.
Seminar 21 Wed 16 September 3-5pm Mt Helen, F200 Literature/cultural studies Meg Tasker [to be confirmed] Seminar 22 Wed 23 September 2-5pm [during lecture break] Royal Historical Society of Victoria, Melbourne Numbers in history Family/regional history Janet McCalman (University of Melbourne) Graeme Davison (Monash University) Seminar 23 Wed 7 October 3-5pm Mt Helen, F200 Folklore, urban legends and memorialization David Waldron Seminar 24 Wed 14 October 3-5pm Mt Helen, F200 Historical archaeology Jacquie Wilson
of the proposed changes. Some offices within the agency are authorized by statute, meaning congressional approval would be necessary, while others are not. The reorganization effort, which would be phased in over an extended period of time, is in response to executive orders signed by President Trump last year ordering federal agencies to develop a reorganization plan and to look for ways to downsize staffing where possible. Resources: Michael Stratford, “Morning Education: Education Department Proposes Sweeping Organizational Overhaul — DeVos Calls for Hearings on School Shootings,” Politico: Morning Education, February 16, 2018. Author: KSC ED Confirms Transgender Student Complaint Procedures The U.S. Department of Education (ED) confirmed to news outlets this week that it will not take action on complaints filed by transgender students who are prohibited from using the restroom corresponding to their gender identity. Last year, the Trump Administration withdrew guidance issued under the previous administration directing schools to accommodate transgender students based on their gender identity and noting that ED would interpret the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 as also covering discrimination based on gender identity. Press reports last month indicated that ED had dismissed several complaints from students claiming discrimination based on transgender status. Liz Hill, spokesperson for ED, responded to press inquiries this week stating that ED’s position is that “Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, not gender identity.” ED, however, may reportedly still investigate some types of complaints from transgender students but not complaints based on restroom use. “Where students, including transgender students, are penalized or harassed for failing to conform to sex-based stereotypes, that is sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX,” Hill said. “In the case of bathrooms, however, long-standing regulations provide that separating facilities on the basis of sex is not a form of discrimination prohibited by Title IX.” Two federal appeals courts in recent years have ruled in favor of transgender students claiming discrimination based on schools limiting their use of restrooms corresponding to their gender identities, but lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on the matter. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to weigh in substantially on this issue. Justices on the Supreme Court opted to return a case brought last year from a student out of Virginia to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw the Obama-era guidance on Title IX.
The Federal Update for July 06, 2018 From: Michael Brustein, Julia Martin, Steven Spillan, Kelly Christiansen DOJ Rescinds Guidance on Race in College Admissions The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced late Tuesday afternoon that it would , including several related to the use of race to achieve diversity in postsecondary education. Many of these guidance documents were issued following the Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas and offered institutions information on how the federal government would treat institutions who considered the race of applicants in the admissions process. That guidance told institutions they were not required to remain “race-neutral” in the application process if that would be “unworkable” in their judgment. However, the standard set in previous Supreme Court cases regarding the permissibility of race-conscious admissions remains intact. In cases like Fisher, the Court has said that there are compelling educational benefits for students to be gained from institutional diversity, and that standard has not changed. The Obama-era guidance merely encouraged institutions to consider the importance of diversity. Still, some analyses have noted that this decision – especially combined with an ongoing investigation into Harvard’s use of race-conscious admissions – may be signaling to institutions that they should be more careful about how they consider race. In its announcement, DOJ traces this rescission to a February 2017 Executive Order, in which President Trump asked agencies to identify existing regulations for repeal, replacement or modification if they were unnecessary, outdated, inconsistent with existing law, or otherwise improper. According to a statement from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, DOJ believes these guidance documents to be unnecessary and overly burdensome. “In previous administrations, however, agencies often tried to impose new rules on the American people without any public notice or comment period, simply by sending a letter or posting a guidance document on a website. That’s wrong, and it’s not good government,” he wrote. Furthermore, he said, those guidelines “advocate policy preferences and positions beyond the requirements of the Constitution.”
Business Case Analysis Assumptions Users want a way to analyze the quality of the software they have developed, managed, or invested in. Users will make business decisions based on the findings revealed by the software quality analysis. Users will access the system using Chrome on Desktop devices. Users will create an account using their email address. Stakeholders Initiatives Value Propositions Beneficiaries are Developer - CSCI 577 Team Maintainer - Pooyan Client - Pooyan Admin - Pooyan Users - Researcher, Project Manager, Contributors (Navy, NASA, students) Developers: Develop system Maintainer: Maintain the system Client: Properly host system using HTTPS, Advertise the system Admin: Manage user permission Users: Present project for analysis, hoping to examine software quality across various metrics. Users able to analyze projects using various software quality metrics. Users able to evaluate development team member contributions to software quality Opportunity to fix major flaws identified by software quality metrics. Grow system’s customer base. Users can better understand the value of their investment. System security will be consistent with industry standards. Client Users - Researchers, Project Manager, Contributors
Feasibility Evidence: Open source project display on a dashboard page. The user can select the open source project to view statistical data of that project. Referred use case diagram: UC-9 CR-5: Request to add new collaborator Software/Technology used: ReactJS, Bootstrap, PostgreSQL and Node.js Feasibility Evidence: Add collaborator page Referred use case diagram: UC-6 CR-6: Add project to analysis system Software/Technology used: ReactJS, Bootstrap, PostgreSQL and Node.js Feasibility Evidence: Project Submission Page Referred use case diagram: UC-7 CR-7: Statistical page Software/Technology used: ReactJS, Bootstrap, D3&Canvas, PostgreSQL and Node.js Feasibility Evidence: Statistical Page Prototype Referred use case diagram: UC-10 CR-8: See list of all favorite projects Software/Technology used: ReactJS, Bootstrap, PostgreSQL and Node.js Feasibility Evidence: Add favorite project prototype page, favorite project list in dashboard page Referred use case diagram: UC-11 CR-9: Admin Panel Software/Technology used: ReactJS, Bootstrap, PostgreSQL, Mailgun and Node.js Feasibility Evidence: Admin panel prototype
Risk Assessment Table 9: Risk Assessment # Risks Risk Exposure Risk Mitigations Potential Magnitude Probability Loss Risk Exposure 1 Obsoleteness due to COTS products 5 6 30 Examine alternatives (tableau), and assess how our product might exceed its use-case. 2 Not sure about new system scalability 3 4 12 Explore restructuring the data; explore how statistics page can accommodate larger data sets
Business Case Analysis Assumptions People are willing to use an electronic system for collaboration Increased collaboration improves research Stakeholders (Who) Initiatives (What) Value Propositions (Why) Beneficiaries (For Whom) Developers PTS marketing team PTS research team Web master Database administrator Develop System Market the project and get people to sign up. Promoting success stories. Collect statistics on injuries Train the web master. Increase research collaborations between members of PTS. Improve education and research. Reduce number of injuries for children. Reduce the burden on hospitals and clinics. Members of PTS The medical field Children Parents Hospitals, Clinics, Society Cost Development Personnel Training (Developers, Webmaster) Maintenance Infrastructure expenses (e.g. Web Hosting/Server) Benefits Number of members’ published papers (Rational: This project is supposed to facilitate researchers (members) collaboration. So if in the future we find that the number of published paper increased, it means that this project has been useful. Hours that each member spend for researching
Risk Assessment Table 9: Risk Assessment Risks Risk Exposure Risk Mitigations Potential Magnitude Probability Loss Risk Exposure Inability to connect to PubMed will fail the project. 8 4 32 Test PubMed API and Alert System COTS products chosen do not meet the needs of the users. 4 7 28 Get client and board feedback, COTS assessment, Prototyping COTS which are not able to talk to each other will produce extra rework. 2 3 6 COTS assessment, Test Demo versions, Prototyping Staffing unavailability (database manager, moderator) would increase system downtime. 4 4 16 Get client and board feedback, Business Case Analysis Lack of developer skills would increase lifecycle plan. 3 5 15 Training, Consider other programming language Current host database size limitation will produce extra effort (server changing). 2 3 6 Estimate Database size, Work with limitation, Consider other host services Client will not be satisfied if response time does not meet target. 6 3 18 Consider Solr, Lucene solutions, Prototyping
Business Case Analysis Assumptions People are willing to use an electronic system for collaboration Increased collaboration improves research Stakeholders (Who) Initiatives (What) Value Propositions (Why) Beneficiaries (For Whom) Developers PTS marketing team PTS research team Web master Database administrator Develop System Market the project and get people to sign up. Promoting success stories. Collect statistics on injuries Perform outreach of new research Train the web master. Increase research collaborations between members of PTS. Improve education and research. Reduce number of injuries for children. Reduce the burden on hospitals and clinics. Members of PTS The medical field Children Parents Hospitals, Clinics, Society Cost Development Personnel Training (Developers, Webmaster) Maintenance Infrastructure expenses (e.g. Web Hosting/Server) Benefits Number of members’ published papers (Rationale: This project is supposed to facilitate researchers’ (members) collaboration. So if in the future we find that the number of published paper increased, it means that this project has been useful.) Hours that each member spends on research.
Cost Analysis Personnel Costs Table : Personnel Costs Activities Time Spent (Hours) Development Period (24 weeks) Valuation and Foundations Phases: Time Invested (CS577a, 12 weeks) Client: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [3 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 1 people] 36 Client Representatives (Webmaster): Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [1 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 1 people] 12 Architecture Review Boards [1.5 hrs * 2 times * 2 people] 6 Development and Operation Phases: Time Invested (CS577b, 12 weeks) Client: Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [5 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 1 people] 60 Maintainer (Webmaster): Meeting via email, phone, and other channels [3 hrs/week * 12 weeks * 1 people] 36 Architecture Review Boards and Core Capability Drive-through session [1.5 hrs * 3 times * 2 people] 9 Deployment of system in operation phase and training - Installation & Deployment [3 hrs * 4 times * 2 people (Client & Webmaster)] - Training & Support [2 hrs * 8 times * 2 people (Client & Webmaster)] 56 Total 215 Maintenance Period (1 year) Maintenance [6 hr/week * 52 weeks] 156 COTS Support [1hr/week * 52 week] 52 Unpredictable Maintenance Cost (e.g OS/Hardware Changing) 107 Total 315 Hardware and Software Costs Table : Hardware and Software Costs Development & Operation Type Cost Rationale Hardware – Web Hosting and Domain Server $100/year A new web server is needed to serve our application, database and domain name.
Version History Date Author Version Changes made Rationale 10/10/12 MM 1.0 First Version VC Package 10/15/12 MM 1.1 Section 1 and 5 completed FC Package 10/22/12 MM 1.2 Bugs fixed Response to Evaluation of VC Package 10/30/12 MM 1.3 Section 2-4 completed Bugs fixed FCR ARB 11/05/12 MM 1.4 Section 2, 2.2, 2.3, 3 Fixed FCR ARB Comments 11/09/12 MM 1.5 Benefits in Program Model Updated with more realistic concepts (Section 2) Section 2.2, 2.3 updated in regards to the new benefits. Instructor’s Comment 11/26/12 MM 1.6 Bugs fixed New feasibility evidences added (Pulling information from PubMed module ) Bugs fixed based on TA Comments We have provided some feasibility evidences about our most risky module (Pulling information from PubMed module) 11/28/12 MM 1.7 RIO updated Instructor’s Comments 12/03/12 MM 2.0 Bugs fixed Feasibility evidences updated Complete FED for DCR ARB (Final DC Package) 12/10/12 MM 2.1 FED updates based on ARB’s comments Final DC Package 12/17/12 MM 2.2 RIO fixed Level of Service Feasibility, Capability Feasibility, Evolutionary Feasibility Updated TA’s Comment – Evaluation of Final DC Package
Business Case Analysis Assumptions People are willing to use an electronic system for collaboration Increased collaboration improves research Stakeholders (Who) Initiatives (What) Value Propositions (Why) Beneficiaries (For Whom) Developers PTS marketing team PTS research team Web master Database administrator Develop System Market the project and get people to sign up. Promoting success stories. Collect statistics on injuries Perform outreach of new research Train the web master. Increase research collaborations between members of PTS. Improve education and research. Reduce number of injuries for children. Reduce the burden on hospitals and clinics. Members of PTS The medical field Children Parents Hospitals, Clinics, Society Cost Development Personnel Training (Developers, Webmaster) Maintenance Infrastructure expenses (e.g. Web Hosting/Server) Benefits Number of members’ published papers (Rationale: This project is supposed to facilitate researchers’ (members) collaboration. So if in the future we find that the number of published paper increased, it means that this project has been useful.) Hours that each member spends on research.
Business Case Analysis Table 1. Program Model Assumptions (Under what Business assumptions will this ‘model’ be true) Job seeker will prefer a mobile application for searching for jobs at city. Mobile application provides added value to city of LA, better than website. Having a mobile application will attract more candidates. Stakeholders (Who is accountable for the initiatives) Initiatives (What to do to realize benefits) Value Propositions (Benefits i.e Why) (Who derives value) Developers Personnel department selection division Personnel department IT division Information Technology Agency (ITA) Neo Gov website Develop a system Promote it Training about (post Sending notification to the job seekers Provide easy access to job seekers Attract qualified candidates to the city department Better outreach for job seekers Streamline recruiting process Job seekers Current employees for promotion Cost Text Message Notification Apple Developer ID Client Training Benefits Easy access to prospective jobseekers Streamline recruiting process Attract and draw more qualified candidates Better outreach for jobseekers
Business Case Analysis Assumptions People are willing to use an electronic system for collaboration Increased collaboration improves research Stakeholders (Who) Initiatives (What) Value Propositions (Why) Beneficiaries (For Whom) Developers PTS marketing team PTS research team Web master Database administrator Develop System Market the project and get people to sign up. Promoting success stories. Collect statistics on injuries Perform outreach of new research Train the web master. Increase research collaborations between members of PTS. Improve education and research. Reduce number of injuries for children. Reduce the burden on hospitals and clinics. Members of PTS The medical field Children Parents Hospitals, Clinics, Society Cost Development Personnel Training (Developers, Webmaster) Maintenance Infrastructure expenses (e.g. Web Hosting/Server) Benefits Number of members’ published papers (Rationale: This project is supposed to facilitate researchers’ (members) collaboration. So if in the future we find that the number of published paper increased, it means that this project has been useful.) Hours that each member spends on research.
Require little upfront costs 2 2 The major costs are about web hosting and servers. Require low total cost of ownership 2 3 PTS do not need to spend much money to own PTS-RID. Not-so-powerful local machines 2 4 It is a web application.
Risk Assessment Table 9: Risk Assessment Risks Risk Exposure Risk Mitigations Potential Magnitude Probability Loss Risk Exposure Lack of developer skills would increase lifecycle plan. 3 6 18 Training One Team member’s turnover would affect estimations and increase lifecycle plan. 3 6 18 Eliminate Low priority Modules Current PTS log-in page cannot be compatible with the project. 6 3 18 Modify their current code Inability to connect to PubMed will fail the project. 8 2 16 Using PubMed API tools Client will not be satisfied if response time does not meet target. 8 2 16 Consider Solr, Lucene solutions, Prototyping, Optimizing Code COTS products chosen do not meet the needs of the users. 4 2 8 Get client and board feedback, COTS assessment, Prototyping Staffing unavailability (database manager, moderator) would increase system downtime. 4 1 4 Get client and board feedback, Business Case Analysis