Minutes of the SIPB Meeting of 2007-05-21 The meeting was called to order at 19:30 by tabbott. In attendance were Voting members: andersk aseering danjared geofft golem jbarnold jhawk jwalden kchen k_lai mathmike nelhage rayhe tabbott tilia wdaher xsdg yoz | mshaw Associate members: aletta asedeno jtu tibbetts | kcr mitchb srz Prospectives: price spang Guests: Officer Reports: tilia: We have a little less than $900 left. Spend minimal money. tabbott: We have 5 weeks left in the fiscal year. jhawk: Have ambiguities resolved themselves with respect to Athena fees? tilia: Not totally. tabbott: Do we know when that normally happens or do we have to call someone? danjared: We have to beg. jhawk: We could ask. wdaher: I’d like to nominate spang for SIPB membership. She’s done a lot of good work especially on this Debathena thing. danjared: You have your Thinkpad in front of it. wdaher: Well it’s not working right now. spang: I’m not responsible for hardware failures. <16-0-1, motion passes> tabbott: I’ll probably be sending out an end of term report of some form rather than the end-of-term presentation. As a preview, our meeting attendance went up this term. mitchb: On a related note, it looks like we should buy more Aeron chairs. tabbott: We could build a loft. geofft: After discussion with several members, I move to nominate John Hawkinson for revocation of membership in the Board. I make this nomination not because of any isolate cause or event, or for any of my personal interactions with him, but because I, along with (I believe) the majority of the current student members, have come to recognize that John adversely affects this organization and its current and prospective membership. Although I recognize that John is quite technically qualified and rarely matched in his breadth of knowledge, and I realize that he has done good work for the Board, his interactions with members, prospective members, and some who never became associated with the Board, in my view and in the view of many current student members, have impeded the goals of SIPB. And therefore, only because it is my understanding that the majority of the current student membership would like to see closed the chapter of John’s association with the Board, and because the current student membership is ultimately responsible, individually and collectively, for the Board’s future, I make this motion. nelhage: Second. golem: I object. It’s a stupid idea. mathmike: Procedural question. Do we get to vote on this today? tabbott: This works precisely like a normal membership election. This is the nomination stage. We would schedule an actual vote later. kchen: I have a question as to what you mean by revocation of membership. You mentioned “to close the chapter of John’s membership”. Are you asking that he cease involvement with SIPB? geofft: No, I am nominating to revoke privileges related to SIPB membership. I don’t think there is any need to say something such as “not being able to participate in SIPB at all.” mathmike: I don’t see how taking his key to the office or his right to ask for an allocation for a new chair is going to solve the problems. jbarnold: I like the way that geofft put it. As a member of a board, jhawk has an open invitation to participate in the board’s activities as he feels appropriate. The way he has chosen to do so is something that I think most of the student members don’t approve of. golem: I’m disappointed in the secretive way this was put together. SIPB members deserve a more open trial. Dismemberment is the most serious punishment possible by the board. geofft: I don’t think this is a trial; this is not because of any particular incident. It is certainly not because of my personal interactions with him; I would not have done this for that reason alone. I am making this nomination so the board can vote on whether they think this is an appropriate course of action. mitchb: While jhawk has said or done things that annoy me, what I’ve seen of late is that people jump down his throat not because he necessarily did something worthy of that response, but because he’s jhawk. I don’t think that’s fair, and I don’t think dismemberment is appropriate. I think that dismembering is something that should be done only in a case where someone has taken actions which are not just annoying, but wholly inappropriate, harmful, violated rules, or prove them entirely untrustworthy. jbarnold: I don’t think that jhawk has been targeted by additional criticism because of his history, but I do think that people have been making an effort recently to comment on undesirable behavior—the recent EC meeting recommended that members make an effort to do so. jhawk: The board has a wide variety of sanctions that can be offered when it feels actions are inappropriate. This is about the strongest one possible. The board should consider which of the ones it might want to apply before pursuing this one. Of course, I’m particularly biased here. mitchb: Am I correct in understanding that the last time dismemberment was considered was several years ago when someone was suspected of abusing Garry’s Moira bits? tabbott: I heard the EC voted to dismember them and it was voted down by the board. tibbetts: Somebody used the office root to steal someone’s tickets in order to effect an action in Moira. mitchb: They tried to deactivate jis. My point is that that’s a severe trust issue. tabbott: Was there some uncertainty as to whether the person actually did it? tibbetts: Not sure. wdaher: Can we be like, “mycroft”? Is there a reason we’re not saying his name? [hartmans sent a note to sipb-staff indicating that while these claims were made at the meeting, some of the claims about past EC actions and mycroft are factually incorrect.] geofft: I have thought about this action myself, and I’ve talked to a couple of other people about other options. I think that in recent times, all that’s been tried is EC meetings. It may have been effective for sometime, but is not worthwhile to continue on a regular basis if they’re not going to do anything. You can come up with sanctions but I think they are actually stricter, like not being able to be in the office, or not being able to comment; if the board has the ability, I don’t think it has the power to enforce that. If we revoke his membership, the board would be saying that we have found jhawk’s actions to be so unhelpful and against the goals of SIPB that they do not want to continue interacting with him. This does not preclude jhawk from being reconsidered from membership. aseering: I’d like to second the opinion that it’s unfortunate timing. I also feel people have been snapping at jhawk. But I do think there have been a lot of problems and something should be done. If the board decided that jhawk had improved in some way, could he be up for reelection? tabbott: That’s what was just said, yes. aseering: Would people actually do that? [Yes.] tibbetts: If you’re going to eject somebody from the organization, it shouldn’t be with the thought that they’ll get better and you’ll invite them back. If you’re going to do this, go into it intending for it to be permanent. geofft: I am not making this motion with any sort of time period or promise to consider reelection, partly for this reason. I am not predicating this motion on the assumption it will be reversed. nelhage: I think one reason that this form of action might be appropriate is that it reflects that we don’t think that jhawk is a bad person. It isn’t like kicking him out of the office. It merely indicates with him representing us as the face of the board. We’re still willing to allow him to interact with the community, but we’re not comfortable with him scaring away prospectives, acting as a SIPB member. There are plenty of members that enjoy interacting with jhawk and have productive discussions with him. mitchb: I suspect that even wearing a light bulb, that’s green if you’re a member or prospective and red if you’re not, would not change the impression people have about the degree to which someone represents SIPB. jtu: FWIW, when I was chair and speaking with people in IS&T, many were under the impression that jhawk was the voice of SIPB. I know that you [jhawk] never said this, but that was the impression. rayhe: jhawk has always been very helpful to someone coming into the office. jtu: He’s certainly much more polite to arn than I am. jhawk: It seems to me that an appropriate measure might be to censure me, which does not necessarily have a defined meaning. That’s an interim measure the board can consider before dismembership. Also, if the board wanted to consider denial of office privileges, etc. I got the impression from nelhage that the concern is the public face I present. But almost all the criticism I get is about internal interactions. I’m not sure how to resolve that but it seems a bit strange to me. geofft: I believe that the public face includes for example SIPB’s interactions with prospectives, people interested in the organization. Those also fall broadly under the category of internal interactions. I know you do a great job when users come into the office for help. But as someone who was recently a prospective, I have concerns about the interactions that prospectives see with SIPB as a whole, and who they see as speaking on SIPB’s behalf. mitchb: I don’t mean to unwarrantedly devalue your comments, but they sound strange coming from this prospective who, when people tried to defend you when they thought that jhawk had wronged you, indicated that you didn’t think whatever had happened was a big deal. jbarnold: You mentioned that you thought it would be more appropriate for the board to formally warn you or take some other kind of sanction. The EC has sent you letters several times before. Within the last year, in December, I met with you after people raised great concerns with your actions, and talked about how the general membership didn’t approve of the way you were handling things. The EC sent you a letter several months ago. I don’t see that these have led to a behavioral change. xsdg: It seems that having the board tell jhawk that this is what we think and you should change your behavior this way is different from the EC doing so, since the EC is a somewhat small subset of the board. I am aware of the communications the EC has had with jhawk, and I feel that it would be more effective for the entire board to tell jhawk that we feel you’re behaving inappropriately in this way, and we feel that very strongly. It would be more useful if the entire board could be aware to watch out for situations this might be happening, and perhaps give him a nudge when he might need it, rather than revoking membership. This seems to be solving the wrong problem. tabbott: Did you read the minutes from the EC meeting this spring? That was precisely the conclusion of the EC meeting, and that is why people have been jumping on jhawk for saying inappropriate things. kcr: What effect is this intended to have, in the sense that I know that in previous times I’ve heard about jhawk having falling-outs with student groups and him not going away. If he’s still around the office a lot interacting with people, I don’t see that this has any useful effect. jbarnold: To me, this makes clear that the board disapproves of his actions, and does not want him to represent the board. Then he participates as an outsider who should realize that the community has different values from him. If he’s still around in ways that cause harm, that can be addressed by the board in some other way. nelhage: I agree. I’d like to clarify my earlier comment. I presume that he would still be around the office when he wants to be. The purpose would be to make clear that the board disapproves of jhawk’s actions, and we do not see him as the face of SIPB. golem: I think you guys are kidding yourselves if you think you can kick someone out of a social club and have any chance of him staying around in a positive way. geofft: I feel that anything to the extent of the board making motions to prevent jhawk from being in the office would be stronger than revoking membership. It seems that one cannot be a full member of the board if one can’t be in the office. If the board approves this measure, the board is saying, we don’t want your actions to be representative of SIPB’s actions; we don’t want people to see you as acting on behalf of the board. If further actions need to be taken, they can be taken. I don’t think such a measure will be necessary, but if it does, this needs to happen first. xsdg: Could you give a short summary of the grievances you have? geofft: I could, but it’s not a matter of grievances in the sense that I think any single action is nowhere near grounds for revoking membership. It is more the consistent pattern of actions, the fact that the rest of the board has been having very unfortunate interactions with him. It doesn’t seem that we are capable of anything else that will resolve this situation in any practical manner. Our options are to continue doing what we’re doing (have the EC send a statement), or a sanction as I said previously would probably be stronger, or revocation of membership. I don’t see this as, there were X, Y, and Z that happened this month. It’s not the actions in and of themselves. It’s the pattern of actions and the fact that it doesn’t seem to be changing. xsdg: Given what I believe to be the motivation for this, it seems it would be more appropriate to say that jhawk can’t be in the office for the first n weeks of term. It seems to be an issue with essentially scaring prospectives. nelhage: That is only part of the issue. There have also been harmful interactions with people that have been involved in SIPB for a long time. tabbott: Also there are people who were prospectives their junior year, it’s not just freshmen in the first two months. mathmike: I firmly believe that it takes at least two people to have an argument with jhawk. He has never carried on the argument by himself. People who have been around jhawk for some amount of time should at least know this. danjared: I think it’s more than that. I’ve observed many instances when someone has been working on a project for the good of SIPB, and jhawk has criticized them to the point where they don’t want to work on it anymore. kcr: Given that some people find your behavior unacceptable, does SIPB have any way to make that behavior stop short of making you go away? jhawk: I certainly think so. I disagree with statements that I’ve made no changes. It’s hard to evaluate those from my perspective, and I’m not sure how you can evaluate it from outside. I did make a concerted effort regarding prospectives. There were some interactions with geofft over Zephyr and email, and handing the wrist rest to rayhe. I had a discussion with Tim. I did listen to that. To what extent I was successful, I’m not sure. Evidently we’re here today. But I have been worried about these things. I have tried to be less vocal and more careful about the forums that I choose. I’ve been particularly careful about prospectives; the other issues seem less important. I think a statement by the board would be stronger kcr: I haven’t had to strangle you once over the past year, and that’s a big improvement from ten years ago. jhawk: I disagree that this isn’t the strongest possible sanctions, for many reasons, one being that it is hard to undo. It would have an immensely discouraging effect on me, I think that more so than any other thing you might possibly do. golem: I find myself in the unfortunate position of having to agree with jhawk, because I think there’s probably nobody in the room other than possibly jhawk who doesn’t think that jhawk needs to change. I think we’ve had enough discussion on this point. I think that when you’re voting on this motion, it would be a good idea to consider, as well as the immediate effect, the broader effects on SIPB as a whole. Having dismemberment as an easy option changes the character of the SIPB. This motion affects the way prospectives, members, and associate members perceive the SIPB. I would suggest a more measured response, building up to this motion by using more constructive and less punitive membership. I do agree that jhawk has a problem. Whether he’s gotten better, I can’t really judge. Perhaps we should come up with a punishment/reward scheme; maybe we can give him candy if he behaves well. I think we should take a measured approach rather than coming out with thermonuclear weapons. mitchb: To be more blunt about that, I’m sure the line is fairly far out there, but where do we draw the line for prospectives and people new to SIPB, so they know just how vocally they’re allowed to disagree with or criticize things before we throw them out? jwalden: I don’t think it’s a matter of disagreement, I think it’s a matter of the way the disagreement occurs, and I’ve not been comfortable with that several times recently. xsdg: Maybe because I’ve interacted with a lot of hard-to-work-with people, but it seems that disagreements between people happen, and they happen fairly often, and it seems like if people disagree violently, they might just want to stop having discussions, or in this case, tell jhawk that they don’t want his input straightforwardly and forcefully. mshaw: I’m curious. There have been suggestions that a weaker action would be more appropriate. From any of those folks, what would be... maybe I don’t know about SIPB rules. There have been comments that censureship is inappropriately weak, and dismemberment is inappropriately strong. kcr: Kick him out of the office for 4 months, and have the board vote on it rather than the EC. That sends a strong message, but is not permanent. mshaw: My sense is that there are issues both related to the office and not related to the office. SIPB is looking for options that would more forcefully stop actions. kcr: I see it more as an attempt at behavior modifications. tibbetts: You don’t need to try to fix all the problems at once. wdaher: I find this whole thing really humiliating and kind of embarrassing, and I wish I had been more vocal about it earlier. It’s true that jhawk sometimes doesn’t get along with SIPB, but he does a lot of good for SIPB. I’m a little biased by being friends with him inside SIPB and outside of SIPB. But he’s contributed a lot to the good experiences I’ve had here. tabbott: That was part of what geofft included in his original motion. I think it’s unfortunate that there’s this criticism that causes not people to want to work on SIPB projects that comes along with it. I think it would be better if we could have the first and not the second. xsdg: Move to amend the motion to instead kick jhawk out of the office for the first 4 months of term and ask jhawk to not to Zephyr on -c sipb. mshaw: Is this valid? tabbott: I think we should not deal with the procedure here. golem: Friendly amendment that nhoward not Zephyr to -i white-magic as well? geofft: So your amendment is to replace my motion? mitchb: That’s not an amendment. geofft: As I was saying, exactly like Chris said with the mhoward thing, I don’t think it’s feasible to prevent someone from sending Zephyr. jhawk: It seems obvious that if the board says “don’t do X or we’ll dismember you”, there’s an obvious answer if I do X. xsdg: I’d like to add further that if this doesn’t seem to be effective we can certainly proceed with stronger actions sooner. But it seems like this is an intermediate step which would allow us to more accurately gauge, firstly how he may or may not be damaging the SIPB, and secondly given this impetus if he might improve more or watch what he says more often. jbarnold: I don’t see this as a realistic solution. It does nothing for the summer; for the fall he’s not invited into the office or Zephyr; then in the spring we can evaluate. That’s at least a year, and many of us will be gone by then. tibbetts: I would also suggest that any action would be immediate. You might change your mind by September and that would just complicate your life. aseering: I suggest that the actions take effect immediately instead of in the Fall. tabbott: This would be until the end of the Fall term, starting now? geofft: Before deciding to make this motion, I did consider a lot something like this. I was quite disturbed when it really hit me what my motion entailed. I’m not completely comfortable with it. But suppose we accept xsdg’s suggestion, and something happens next year. What happens? Do we consider the same sanction again? xsdg: One thing I’ve been seeing is that it doesn’t seem jhawk understands entirely what he’s doing that people find fault with, and it seems difficult for him to adjust his behavior accordingly if we only take his key away and he doesn’t represent SIPB to some people. It seems more appropriate that we at least start with this and try to identify more specifically what problems people have with jhawk’s behavior. I sometimes do things myself that it’s difficult to change unless people tell me directly what needs to change. jbarnold: That’s happened many times before from individuals, from the EC. Even when specific examples are provided and jhawk tries to change his behavior, it doesn’t change. He does not want to or cannot change the way he behaves. jhawk: I’m not sure to what extent I’m supposed to be responding. I’m curious, since the issue of discouraging prospectives working on projects has been raised, I’m curious what examples of that have taken place. I know I’ve done other things that annoy people, but I don’t think they fall under that. It’s tough to change something that is ever increasing in scope. That is kind of what this feels like to me. I’m curious if I’m missing something. jbarnold: The most recent examples that come to mind have not been examples of discouraging prospectives from doing prospective project work, probably in part because in the last few months SIPB has had essentially no active prospectives (after we member spang). There’s been a general lack of respect for members, using harsh language against members; ripping down a sign and saying that was a stupid idea. mshaw: jhawk’s last comment hit much closer to the crux of what’s going on than many of us saw. I think in some ways there is a miscommunication. You’re saying there’s an ever-increasing scope, while the EC thinks it’s the same scope. The board is trying to send the message that a certain class of activities is unacceptable. You’re talking about individual instances of this class. If that is true and isn’t correctable, it means that communication from the board isn’t going to work in the long term. jhawk: Communication has been clear. Maybe I took it more explicitly than was intended. tabbott: There have been a lot of things that people described as jumping on you. I see that as a good way of looking at the set of things that people find inappropriate. mitchb: I just want to express the opinion that I’m not really happy with the way that this motion and amendment are layered such that people may vote to ban him from the office because if they don’t, he might be dismembered. I think they’re different questions. tibbetts: We could vote down this entire motion and make a new motion according to what people want. mshaw: Banning someone from the office and dismemberment have different purposes. The amendment doesn’t address the problems that the board wants to address. geofft: The amendment has fundamentally different character. I think it would be simpler if we vote on these as separate motions. Perhaps we can assume that only one should pass, but we shouldn’t see one as an amendment to the other. tabbott: It doesn’t matter whether one is an amendment to the other, it matters what decision tree we use to decide what outcome. jhawk: There’s also the distinction that one of these motions causes full debate to happen next week and one of them does not. That certainly affects my ability to respond. mshaw: Given that many of the members in the office won’t be around next week, discussion is not likely to happen. tabbott: I suspect there would be discussion electronically. wdaher: Move to consider the question (the amendment). jbarnold: I think that it is arguable that this is not an amendment since the first line is to wipe out the previous motion. mitchb: Tell us what the decision tree is. jbarnold: [starts drawing decision tree with “us” at the top, “end of meeting” on the bottom; is interrupted] jhawk: I think it is pretty important that if the board is going to consider a lesser sanction that they consider it before the greater section. That is why it’s an amendment, to control the decision tree in that way. tabbott: I think the preference is to consider them as independent motions. jbarnold: Are you planning on doing this by ballot, and can we consider both simultaneously? tabbott: Not simultaneously. geofft: Move to table the motion I introduced. tabbott: We should now discuss whether to ban jhawk from the office, and request he not send Zephyrs to -c sipb, until the end of Fall term. jhawk: This is also a really strong motion, and feels like a very harsh criticism. jtu: It is. jhawk: To me it does not seem a measured response. I have taken the EC’s comments to heart and I have attempted to act on them, and I think I have not been unsuccessful in doing so. The board could be as effective or more effective by being less harsh. golem: We just got very sidetracked on a procedural thing. I did want to think about the issue at hand. I’m not sure whether this impacts the way I should vote, but I’d like jhawk to answer: you’ve had a very detached response to these serious charges levied against you. I feel my response is much more emotional than yours, which is surprising to me. If both of these motions were voted down, what would be your reaction? jhawk: When I am approached with serious things of strong impact, I tend to become more formal in my speech. I don’t tend to express emotion. Do not doubt that I am emotionally affected by tonight’s events. I could get on my knees but I’m skeptical that would be useful. Firstly, it seems that there is clear consensus that there’s a problem here, more so than I had previously appreciated. Secondly, I am much less likely to speak in the foreseeable future than I would have been otherwise. Communications from the EC made me think about specific behaviors. My reaction would be to withdraw significantly though not to the extent specified by this motion. I would be around the office some and interact with users. I think the outcome in terms of my behavior would be the same either way. golem: Thanks for being so candid. [discussion about secret ballots] geofft: I would like the ballot to be secret on behalf of people that would be afraid to vote otherwise. wdaher: I feel that whichever way you vote you should be confident enough to be attach your name to it. jbarnold: The constitution specifically specifies that the ballot for membership procedures may be secret. tibbetts: It does not address whether the ballot for nominations should be secret. wdaher: Motion to overrule the chair and make the ballot non-secret. <10-9-5, motion passes> jhawk: First some minor comments. Assuming this were to pass, I assume I would still have access to office until some time tonight so I could take my stuff out. Also I would appreciate if there was a specified end date. geofft: Friendly amendment to specify December 31. jhawk: Please don’t do this to me. You have made clear that I need to change my communication. I have taken this to heart. I have not ignored this, I have acted on this. It’s clear I need to do more, and I will do more voluntarily. Doing it this way will be much more painful for me, and I appeal to you to not pass this motion. wdaher: Move to consider the question. "Motion to ban jhawk from the office, and request that he not send Zephyrs to -c sipb, until December 31." <5-12-6, motion fails> jhawk: Thank you. mshaw: Move to reopen debate on the tabled motion. mathmike: For people who voted against the motion, please speak up as to why this motion would be better if there are such people. mitchb: And what if we don’t feel that way? mathmike: Then we can be done with this quickly. mshaw: I feel that removing jhawk from the office and -c sipb is an inappropriate response to what’s going on. This motion would likely do a better job at dealing with the problems than the previous motion. jtu: If everyone feels that jhawk has learned his lesson, we could say this is over and black ballot it. wdaher: Motion to black ballot. jbarnold: I object. danjared: I don’t think it’s as much a problem of jhawk annoying people, as him causing varying levels of emotional distress. jtu: I have heard various people say that they stay away from SIPB because of jhawk. nelhage: I agree, it’s far more than just that some of us are a little annoyed. mshaw: I also don’t think that humiliation is the goal. tabbott: I think that is why we’ve tried to avoid bringing this to the full board in the past, and dealt with it through the EC and the chairman. geofft: It was that very concern that caused me to think hard about this. jhawk, I apologize to you personally for this. [more discussion about secret ballots] rayhe: Motion to override the chair and require an open ballot. <4-12-3, motion fails> tabbott: We’re now voting on the nomination to revoke jhawk’s SIPB membership. My intention would be to have this election next week. jhawk: Again I appeal to you, please don’t do this to me. This is an incredibly harsh punishment. I care greatly about SIPB. I contribute to it in helpful ways, and yes sometimes in unhelpful ways. I have tried to mitigate that. I fully intend to separate myself much more from the board and speak less. This motion is more painful than it needs to be, and I ask you not to do this. <11-8-0, motion passes> tabbott: I will schedule within the next day a second meeting to discuss this further. mathmike: How many voting members were not present? andersk: 3. rayhe: Move to delay the dismemberment meeting until the beginning of next term. tabbott: It would be poor to have discussion of this when there are new prospectives in the fall term. golem: Second. jwalden: I’m not going to be here over the summer, but nobody wants three months of sitting and waiting. geofft: Are we required to wait at least a week? tabbott: At least six days. tilia: The voting membership will change in the fall. jtu: jhawk, would the additional three months cause you anguish or unhappiness? jhawk: I think it would cause less anguish than the thought that there was insufficient discussion. I don’t know what’s fair. mitchb: The idea of additional meetings to discuss it this week is a little unfair during finals. mshaw: It would be unfair of those of us today who are not going to be here in September to leave this question out in the open for the voting membership in the Fall to figure out. jbarnold: Given these numbers, and that the constitution requires two thirds yes votes, and given the time of year that it is, it may make sense for the board to immediately remove the nomination for revocation of membership at this time, in order to effectively censure him, and consider further action in the future. yoz: I so move. xsdg: Second. srz: jhawk, in your speech before you mentioned you have some intentions. What are your promises that you make to the board? jhawk: golem asked this earlier; my intention is to speak a lot less, perhaps to be around the office a little less, but mostly to speak less, including on Zephyr and in email, and be very much aware of these issues. srz: Does this include communication with the rest of MIT? jhawk: Yes. Not that I would speak less, but I would be more explicit about my role. jhawk: I would be less likely to engage in friendly conversations. I would be a lot more careful with criticism than with saying hello. jhawk: I do think that it perhaps makes more sense for those who are continuing to be members to make this decision. <12-0-7, motion passes> jhawk: Thank you. tabbott: Anything else for officer reports? golem: I have one more serious thing to say. I didn’t look at who voted because I didn’t want to know. People today are talking about creating a hostile environment in the office. I can’t remember the last time that the office has been so hostile. That’s part of what I meant by measured response. tilia: Move to adjourn. wdaher: I object, I want to hear Other. MIT Computing Report: wdaher: student.mit.edu was not responding on port 80. mitchb: MIT has decided to drop mail with spam scores above 25. geofft: There are these signs on the clusters which instruct people how to print to other printers and remove their jobs. I think that the signs are making people typo the option to send to another printer. jhawk: I would encourage you to ask a couple of the users. SIPB Projects Report: aseering: SIPB now hosts a wine locker, including winerun. aseering: The hard disk for the Ubuntu mirror arrived today. tabbott: We got an email from dheera proposing that we set up a… aletta: [chokes with laughter] tabbott: wakeup call service. geofft: It might be reasonable for the office to get a VoIP account for general use and scripting. danjared: I am going to talk to people doing the VoIP project about this. Office Report: tabbott: We’ve got an office. jwalden: The last two of the books I ordered arrived. tabbott: The office could use some cleaning. jhawk: There’s an issue with the speaker on the top of the rack. tabbott: presbrey reported some problems with it and sent mail. geofft: It has very bad feedback on one or two particular bass notes. keithw did something about making LAMP sound better, and I think the net effect of both of these is that it uses only one speaker. Education Report: tabbott: We’re out of cluster cards. mitchb: I’ll deal with it. tabbott: Get a couple hundred. mshaw: IAP is sooner than you think. It’s actually more than two hours sooner than it was at the beginning of this meeting. tabbott: I do think IAP classes are one of the really valuable things we do for the community. Also clue dumps in the fall. Also SIPB computer tours. Let me know if you’re interested in helping with that this year. Other: andersk: Motion to adjourn. tibbetts: You all need to cut smaller ballots because somebody needs to eat them. nelhage: Move to move to Other Other. Other Other: jtu: APO could use some help moving some books tonight. geofft: Motion to congratulate andersk for taking great minutes and being patient through all of this. Discussion Report: The meeting was adjourned at 21:47. Minutes taken and submitted by andersk.