Minutes of the SIPB Meeting of 04/6/98 The meeting was called to order at 19:30 by elliot. In attendance were Voting members: yak, hartmans, elliot, sit, jered, kcr, foley, cat, jdaniel, jmorzins, annmarie, amu, magdalenn, yonah | nygren, yandros, katyking, jdaniel, svalente Associate members: jemorris, marc, jhawk, rjbarbal, jewell, jtkohl, jweiss, mhpower, wesommer, leira | tytso, xiphmont, warlord, frodo, shabby, mjbauer, jcb, nlgillman, dkk Non-voting members: Prospectives: sly, tb, jmercado, amyv, lnemzer, gisele, rfrankel, zoz, Martin Peck Guests: carolorm Guest Report: carolorm: I am here as director of mediation. Mediation, dispute resolution, etc. I'm here to help you work out issues that you want to work out. Let me tell you a little about where I'm starting from so we can all start from the same place. It is generally the case that people care a lot about the process. People are more likely to accept the outcome if the process is fair even if it is not the outcome they wanted. I'm assuming that you don't see yourself as a court. You don't want to resolve questions of fact. Would like to discover a process that does not turn you into a court. hartmans: When can we decide to let MIT handle something and not to handle internally? When is this good? carolorm: It can be a highly appropriate thing to do. It also amounts to a decision by the organization. It might be what you want to decide. Referring the matter outside is a kind of decision. There is mediation, there is formal complaints and resolution, which doesn't necessarily have to result in serious sanctions. There are also external legal avenues. tb: I'm concerned about secrecy and the way that secrecy effects process. You talked about how process is more important than getting to the result. Since I haven't been at closed meetings, I don't know what the process was. carolorm: Openness is often a component of fairness. As you develop a fair process, you want to balance the need for discretion with the need for the general perception that it's a fair process. magdalen: One concern is that if someone had an accusation to make that they were not willing to confront the accused. carolorm: One possible route is to say that the mere accusation is enough. If someone accuses a member of the organization accuses another member then that person is excluded. One disadvantage is that the person who is accused is not presenting a defense. tb: What about mutual accusations? carolorm: You either have to say that there is a process or that there isn't and that members have to resolve differences externally. The usual thing to resolve these issues internally is to have a subgroup to find facts, make decisions, etc. tytso: I'm a member of this organization and I have management authority at MIT. I have extra responsibilities in this capacity and if I don't act, I can get in trouble. [He is required by MIT policy and law to report certain conduct if he becomes aware of it even if the victim does not want the conduct reported.] carolorm: If you are not in a federal court room, I don't think that matters too much. There are very few constraints about membership in a private organization. [not aware of MIT policy.] elliot: I talked to Kathy Allen about this; She felt that unless the people wanted to deal with this as n employee issue then it would not be a problem for IS. rjbarbal: I think you said that one of our options is to defer outside. Another option is to handle as a group. Finally, defer to a third subgroup. That subgroup would probably be the EC. carolorm: EC may not be appropriate; someone on EC may be involved. annmarie: Are there any forums that work for complaints against non-students? carolorm: The formal complaint resolution process is not available. Mediation is available if any parties are students. Decisions within the group are available. annmarie: What does mediation entail? carolorm: It usually makes sense to try to reach some clarity about which issues just involve individuals and which are group issues. Generally two people, possibly up to three or four. The alternative is to deputize someone to speak for the group. carolorm: Mediation does not depend on determining wright and wrong. The people tell their sides, etc. It works only if the people work together. Sometimes, the motivation that this is the best alternative can be enough. Mediators try to talk to people involved. Help each person to hear what the other is trying to say. Mediation does not impose an outcome on anyone. Totally voluntary. Not an official or binding agreement. annmarie: Mediation is not a one-shot thing. It can happen over a fair amount of time? carolorm: Most commonly it is actually one session. If that doesn't resolve it, and the parties wish, they can return. kcr: When is it reasonable to deny people access? carolorm: I would recommend that you focus on your own mission. There is no right and wrong answer to that. It's your collected wisdom. hartmans: So what can we do if we decide not to handle a problem and the people are not students? carolorm: It depends on the level of what is going on. There can be options available in the regular civil courts. If the conduct doesn't reach that level, the only options are within the organization. There is no book that you can refer to that can give you the answer. tytso: On the one hand, people do not want to be a fact finding body. On the other hand, I detect a desire to handle the situation non-officially. carolorm: Once the organization has made a decision, you have the MIT authorities. If the parties are not willing to resolve the differences outside the organization, and if the organization is not willing to let the dispute just simmer, then you must decide as an organization. annmarie: What is involved in excluding someone? Can we say don't come back? Or is there something more formal? carolorm: If you don't already have bylaws that govern this, you need them. You then refer to them. Once you have made the decision, then you can call the CPs. annmarie: If the bylaws don't explicitly state this is what one does, can the person refute the decision? carolorm: The value of the bylaws goes back to the perception of the fair process. shabby: If the bylaws say nothing about this currently. What can we do with the situation at hand? carolorm: Start promptly and develop a process. tb: My perception is that the organization has clear bylaws for making the decision. The problem isn't so much that level of the process, but the discussion that produced the vote. carolorm: It's generally the case in our society that you can't insist on knowing why someone voted. tytso: One concern was that there was a question of what was fair to discuss. There are multiple levels here. carolorm: [enumerating what she has heard] There are a lot of concerns about how the decisions were made. Some apparently thought that the issues were not correctly framed. People who could have been there and who were not there may have been concerned. mhpower: People who were personally involved were able to deliver fairly powerful and emotionally compelling stories. Fairness about story being told to some in the group. carolorm: I don't understand the objection to fairness from people who could have been there who weren't. elliot: There was advanced notice for the meeting . carolorm: I hear your concern about people having to repeat their stories. I agree that once should be enough. It tends to be about all almost anyone can stand. sly: No formal process for members to find out what happened at the closed meeting. jcb: Another concern was the relevance of some of the statements that accusers made. Criteria for considering things happening out of this office carolorm: That gets back to your criteria for deciding these questions. Ideally you decide these criteria in advance. The criteria can be much different. We have to be fairly convinced that what happened interferes with this organization. If you decide on them in advance, then you have to apply them. Before you can decide on the issue you have to gain consensus on the criteria. hartmans: How do you deal with members vs non-members? carolorm: If the two sides were equal. Members get all the preference and non-members lose. If you decide not to do it that way, then you are going to get into developing the process for fact finding. bean: At the original meeting, I had a concern that some of the people who had concerns prospectives talked to a source anonymously. carolorm: Any process where the accusations are hearsay or where the accused has not had a chance to respond are not at the same level of fairness. But, it lets your organization just get on with it. shabby: You said that it is feasible to take all accusations Where does non-members rights enter into that? carolorm: It would have to get to the level of libel before you would have a problem just accepting all accusations. warlord: [asking about the emotional situation of the accuser, I think; I missed the question.] carolorm: Their emotional situation should be taken into account. tb: Is the current situation to be regarded as beyond fixing? Or is there some way of backing up a bit and trying to say that we really screwed up and let's try again? carolorm: If the sense is that you want to back up and try again, you can do that. tb: Is it helpful? My suspicion is that it's too late. carolorm: A general feeling of satisfaction with the process within the organization. Only you will know that there is an acceptable level of satisfaction. If you find yourselves involved week after week with many people involved in the issue, you're not done. leira: There is another issue. Accusations were made in closed session, the fact that there were serious accusations has been spread. The accused knows that accusations have been made; a serious issue of reputation melined but he can't respond. I think many are uncomfortable with that. carolorm: Balancing harm to reputation vs the accuser's interest in privacy to general privacy about to . Their This is why people choose not to bring serious charges in courts of law. In less formal fora the balance often tips in the favor of the accusers. leira: The public perception of the accusations may be different than the weight of the accusations. carolorm: I hear your concern; the process for addressing that is a fact finding and decision making process. That is the way to address that concern. There are obvious disadvantages to going that route. wesommer: There is a process issue here in that there was a not-entirely closed meeting in that things have leaked. What I have heard through the rumor mill is not re-assuring. While the written procedure may have been followed, the nature of the way things spread afterwards created confusion. annmarie: I'm wondering if organizations have ever done something like said that there are enough people who feel uncomfortable that this person has to go away. However, request that the people who feel directly involved go into mediation. carolorm: Depends partly on whether you want the accused person to respond. If we want him to have a chance to publicly respond, you can do that. That really isn't consistent with being done with the issues. nlgillman: Fairness is very important to SIPB. It is also our reputation that is at stake. Others considering joining will consider doing so, based on how we handle these issues. xiphmont: First, the assertion that there would be no rumor mill had everyone respected confidentiality are mildly absurd. Second, in all of the proposed process lists, Carl Alexander comes dead last. It's causing him a lot of grief; he's really, really messed up over this. elliot: I would like to see us handle policy in an open meeting. srz: Given that there were no minutes of the closed session. There was probably a number of members who would like to understand what happened. This may require a closed meeting. rjbarbal: Would it be OK to send a policy your way and make sure it is reasonable? carolorm: I would encourage you to use your own best judgment. tb: Perhaps the guest could point out potential problem areas. carolorm: I could help with that. warlord: If the accusations do turn out to be true and we as an organization decide to allow this person to remain in the office and something happens, what are the legal consequences? carolorm: If you have used a reasonable process, then I don't foresee any legal repercussions. You may feel guilty, but there should not be a legal process.. warlord: We dismiss the allegation for whatever reason, but we now have the knowledge that it may have happened in the past. I feel that we can be held liable for encouraging that activity. carolorm: If the evidence is overwhelming, then I don't think you would dismiss it. If you are creating an environment that encourages this type of behavior, then you might have a problem. hartmans: What if we decide not to handle the issue at all? carolorm: You have no obligation to your members to be courts of law especially if you let it be known ahead of time that you are not going to deal with issues like this. marc: Let's say that someone else's attorney disagrees, would you get support from MIT? carolorm: Yes, if you follow a reasonable process. carolorm: If you ignore overwhelming evidence, then there might have a problem. Treasurer's Report: () Chairman's Report: kcr: Looking at the procedures. I went wondering through the constitution. The only thing I could find was in Article VIII. In cases of discipline, the EC may withhold services. xiphmont: I move that SIPB rescind the ban on xela being in the office immediately. [second by shabby] elliot: I think that this is probably the wrong order to do this. srz: That was one of the initial points carolorm made: process matters. [xiphmont withdraws motion; we agree to let it be presented later.] kcr: That would appear to indicate that the sort of thing as banning someone from the office is an EC matter more than a membership matter. It's not clear that our voting was in order. warlord: I think it is very important that the SIPB be able to deal with these issues when it effects people FTGOS. xiphmont: I do not think that SIPB as an organization is capable of dealing. bean: I do not think that SIPB wants to undertake the task of fact finding. I think that whatever the SIPB does would have to be more informal. If the SIPB decides that it is not capable of dealing, I would recommend that SIPB go to mediation. I'm not at all convinced that the SIPB as on organization is competent to do this task, for reasons I'm not sure that I can say. nygren: To provide a framework for discussion. I talked to many people and based on this, I came up with a reasonable policy proposal that covers a lot of the issues. Based on this I have put together a motion. On April 6, 1998, the Student Information Processing Board, Defining "affiliates" to include the members, prospective members, guests, users, and customers of the SIPB, Recognizing that the SIPB is not equipped to deal with civil or legal disputes between its affiliate, Asserting that it is imperative that the SIPB have some control over who can be in the office of the SIPB, Desiring an office environment that is conducive to furthering the goals of the SIPB, Realizing that the SIPB should strive to operate in a fair and equitable manner, Understanding that any actions taken with regards to the current situation will set a precedent that may be applied to similar future situations, Desiring a timely and just resolution to the current situation that attempts to address the concerns of all parties involved, 1. Resolves that it is the policy of the SIPB not to arbitrate civil or legal disputes between its affiliates, including, in particular cases involving harassment, 2. Requests that affiliates with complaints against other affiliates take their complaints to the resources of the Dean's office, stopit@mit.edu, the MIT Campus Police, any appropriate legal authority, or, in complaints of harassment, to the appropriate resources listed in the MIT publication "Dealing with Harassment at MIT"; 3. Suggests that the Chair, Vice Chair, and/or other members may assist other affiliates in bringing complaints to the proper authority; 4. Establishes a policy for dealing with situations where the presence of certain individuals in the SIPB office presents a significant obstruction to the ability of the SIPB to further its goals. In such a situation, the SIPB may officially or unofficially request that the Chair or another member talk to the individual and explain the specific concerns of the SIPB. The individual shall then be given a chance to address the concerns of the SIPB, take corrective action, and/or alter his or her behavior. If the individual continues to significantly obstruct the ability of the SIPB to further its goals, he or she may be requested to not enter the SIPB office until such time as there is reason to believe that the problem has been addressed. If the individual is not willing to abide by these terms or wishes to contest them, she or he should take the issue up with an appropriate authority; 5. Mentions that operative clause 4 may be applicable in, but not limited to, the following situations: a) Situations where a non-member places a burden on the resources of the SIPB in a way that obstructs the ability of the SIPB to further its goals over a prolonged period of time; b) Situations where the presence of an individual in the office makes a significant number of affiliates uncomfortable; 6. Reiterates that it is the policy of the SIPB to NOT discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, age, veteran status, ancestry, or national or ethnic origin; 7. Sincerely apologizes to Carl Alexander for the way in which issues have been handled during and subsequent to his membership election; 8. Repeals the resolution indefinitely barring Carl Alexander from the SIPB office; 9. Bars Carl Alexander from the SIPB office until Wednesday April 15, 1998 to allow any affiliates with grievances against him time to pursue appropriate channels. elliot: I am not sure this is the time to deal with this. Even if it includes the right things, doing it now would be wrong. hartmans: Point of order. I'm not sure that preventing the motion from being presented is a good idea or in order. kcr: It seams to me that this is not entirely consistent. Clause 4 in particular is more of a bylaws issue than a policy issue. I think that barring xela is inconsistent with the word request above. bean: In the interest of deciding on policy before this case, I think that 8 and 9 should be separate. tb: How about discussion of the clauses individually in order. mhpower: I think what this is is a summary of the minority position from last week, so I don't think we will get far by starting here. kcr: Move to table. [second] srz: I think the motion tabling is connected to what we want to do at this meeting. We should get suggestions from people, decide that meta issue, and proceed along the path. elliot: I am not against this motion, but I think the process is important. wessommer: I would rather see a brief meta-process discussion before discussion of specific actions. many-few-few passes; tabled elliot: Should we be dealing with inter-personal problems at all? kcr: There are some inter-personal problems that are very reliant to the operation of the SIPB. If two maintainers disagree about .klogin, that is very reliant. If you're talking about situations where you want to think about someone not being around, these things should be informal and by consensus. elliot: I would like to get a consensus that we should handle personality conflicts or we should not. It is my impression that we do at least need to handle it at least when it effects people in the office. elliot: Last week we sort of noticed that sometimes the queue worked and sometimes it didn't. No point in repeating an opinion many times. kcr: People had fairly significant things to say and got lost in queue flushes. yandros: I was going to suggest that we vote about the statement: The SIPB has the right, responsibility, etc to restrict its membership based on the comfort level of its members. elliot: I wanted to deal with office first. shabby: It occurs to me you want to be discussing clause one. We have proven ourselves unable to arbitrate these things in a reasonable fashion using our current techniques. bean: To yandros, I think one of the reasons why this has gotten so messy is that this came up during a membership meeting and the same things carried over. There is a large distinction between membership and if we want someone in the office. FTGOS, technical clue, and trust are part of the criteria for membership. Accusations still effect trust, so they effect membership. It's not the sort of thing we want to arbitrate. If someone accuses someone of something randomly, I do not think that sort of thing is really appropriate to decide if someone should be allowed in the office. Secondly, I think that the SIPB should be able to decide whether someone is around the office; that should be based on whether they are interfering with the operations of SIPB. If someone is a persistent problem, then we should have the power to do something about it. If someone accuses someone about something outside the office that should not be a factor. elliot: If we decide not to deal with personal conflicts at all, then they should not be a factor in either, else we need to decide where they are useful. srz: If I like walking around in underware around the office could that be a personal conflict? elliot: that might be a conflict. yandros: I contend that SIPB will have to deal with interpersonal problems and we will have to decide at some level. wesommer: Historically we have not had a good track record dealing with problems that escalate. I do not recall situations where one set of people wanted to member someone and others wanted to bar them. jcb: There is some amount of that that can't be avoided. If someone is effecting the office environment in such a way that it drives away people. We have dealt with SIPB members being obnoxious. Set criteria for what is expected of members in the office. Safety, possibly comfort, FTGOS. As a side comment, SIPB has a tendency to take the largest hammer it can find and apply it. I'm of the opinion you want to start with the smallest hammer and apply it. nlgillman: SIPB has historically dealt fairly competently with inter-personal issues that involved FTGOS. When there was a large consensus, it worked. I think SIPB will continue to need to do so when there is a fraction that we need to determine feels that the office is being effected. yandros: Straw poll: I contend that SIPB will obviously need to deal with interpersonal problems at some point and the question is at what level? tb: Rephrasing: a general consensus that there are situations where you have to get involved. elliot: Final phrasing: the SIPB may at some point need to deal with interpersonal issues. [clear consensus] rjbarbal: Continue to have straw polls and then eventually develop policy. hartmans: I find straw polls useless because they are ambiguous and because they do not give me a framework to think through issues. I get a lot out of the discussion. marc: I move that the SIPB recognize that the SIPB may need to take action in the case of some interpersonal conflicts. [yandros seconds] hartmans: I don't think we should vote on this. nygren: My problem with voting on things like this is that I think the results of these will reflect procedural things rather than points on the issues. I have trouble dealing with single issues rather than formulated policies. jcb: In response to nygren: that is a good point. If the motion makes since in abstract, however then it would not be FTGOS to vote against. [18-3-9] passes. jtkohl: I would like to move to discussion on what the times are. When behavior is interfering with operations of the SIPB or providing services to users. Pretty much anything else should be outside the scope. nygren: Three different types of inter-personal conflicts. Trivial case of unrelated conflict that may carry over. Not appropriate to handle. Issues going on that effect day-to-day operations. SIPB should take action to correct the situation. Imperative people be given an opportunity to correct. Third category is when the dispute is legal, criminal or civil; SIPB should not get at all involved. hartmans: I agree with bean and jtkohl. warlord: In regard to nygren. There are a number of times where your first and third issue do interfere with your second issue. Legal or interpersonal issues can become operational. marc: First, I move to limit discussion to end at 23:15. yonah: If there are unresolved issues? marc: adjourn and postpone. yandros: I am opposed to this motion. I think we should deal with this situation tonight. srz: I support jcb: Propose a friendly amendment such that a meeting is adjourned when more than one third of the people here have left. s/people/members/ [rejected] wesommer: I think a time limit is useful. Better to look at while all fresh than to be tired and cranky and annoyed. warlord: The longer we postpone settling this issue, the more people will be physically and emotionally strained and hurt. srz: I think that goes against what we heard from mediation. hartmans: Enquiry on vote (2/3 as per Roberts or something else)? Elliot says majority. frodo: It might be possible to have a discussion before Monday at a informal gathering. [17-11-2] passes; elliot is using majority marc: I think that we are specifically separately discussing banning from membership. Threshold for former should be much higher than the second. What situations should we take action against an individual? Propose either when the person's actions negatively effect the ability to FTGOS or when there is an individual that causes enough members discomfort that they cannot FTGOS. shabby: Suggest appointing constitutional congress type deal. Interview members and eventually come forward with proposals after this type discussion can happen in a much more controlled and reasonable fashion. elliot: How many people think we should have a committee deal before we present this to the membership. [two thirds thought it would be a good idea] jhawk: Is the intent of straw polls to stifle debate? elliot: Obtaining idea of the level of support before having debate. shabby: I move to appoint such a committee.[second by frodo] bean: I think that really we should get a consensus on general nature of these things and make some proposals. IF consensus is to modify bylaws, we can have a committee on bylaws. tb: I really like shabby's idea because there may be things that there are substantial support. The two thirds should get to write the policy, but the remaining third should be listened to. If the committee is doing a good job then every one will be listened to. This is a method that gets that trys to find out while still listening. tytso: My big concern with a committee is that the committee has to do a good job. The people who are most strident at this meeting and on the mailing lists are not consistent with the ways straw polls are coming out. elliot: Probably a committee is a bad idea. We keep trying to pass things off. We are just going to have to deal with this again in the general forum. kcr: It's not strikingly clear that anything resembling a consensus is possible. I'm not sure that interviewing people can produce a result that can satisfy 2/3 of the people. yonah: Working committee stuff. shabby: withdraws. nlgillman: I would like to encourage straw polls so that we can find consensus fairly quickly. jhawk: I want to speak in favor of the motion that was withdrawn. I have been in the organizations that have had committees do these things. I move that we designate a bylaws committee to look at these issues and come back to the membership in two weeks time. yandros: I think that jhawk's point is perfectly valid accept that it is completely wrong. We will be wasting time I don't have. marc: I agree that it should be a committee not a bylaws committee. Having 30 people argue about this thing is clearly not working. foley: As much as I relish in this chaos, I see we are not getting any where. jered: It is very hard to set policy in small groups and impossible in large groups. nlgillman: We need to make sure we have some mechanism to figure out if there is consensus. cat: I recognize that elliot is trying to keep the meeting flowing. Five people is not always representative. If it does a good job, and people feel their opinion has been expressed, I think this will greatly reduce the discussion. jtkohl: I have heard several members discuss the concept of consensus but even so we can come to a resolution. Even if we don't agree on the outcome, then if the process is reasonable, we may be able to live with it. jcb: Point of inquiry: do we in fact have the ability to create such a committee in this meeting? rjbarbal: We can do that because everything the board does is approved by the EC unless the EC acts to unapprove. jemorris: I move to amend to state that the committee shall be the EC, that its recommendations shall include a general policy for dealing with these issues and that they shall be binding. jhawk: This amendment grants a lot of power to the committee. I don't think we want to do that. Forcing the result to be binding is poor. I move the question.[second] [27-2-3] passes. Vote on amendment: [1-many-4] amendment fails. jhawk finally accepts ad hoc vs EC. tytso: Concrete suggestion: I would view that the output of the committee may not be policy. The committee should produce a summary report of all positions. If we have that then maybe we can save on discussion. I suspect the policy will fall out . marc: I agree with Ted. No reason not to draft a policy. I am not sure how we would do this. hartmans: I agree with Ted. nygren: I have one concern. The scope of trying to get input from membership in finite time mhpower: I think that forming a committee would be a bad idea. It may take a lot of time even if people have time; detracts from FTGOS. Second, I'm not sure that collecting info from every SIPB member is relevant. The issue appears to impact people active in the office. Self selection of showing up at the meeting is useful. jhawk: It's the committee's job to weight input. jcb: A number of objections were made on a basis of time. We have already spent about 300 person hours and have nothing to show for it. kcr: In response to mhpower: how SIPB chooses to deal with this situation reflects on all members. nlgillman: Committee can solicit input in more than just one-on-one interviews. yonah: I move the question. [second] [26-3-3] passes. jhawk: I move to establish an ad-hoc committee to consider these issues and report to the membership in two weeks time barring extensions. [26-2-4] passes. jhawk: I propose that we ask for people who are interested and then we approve that slate. Then, we have the members select a chair. Not sure how to add people who weren't here. srz: I think the committee should be the EC. A committee chosen without this issue. The membership has decided that they trust these people in the general case. tytso: I would be happy with the EC being the committee if it was clear that the EC was just coming up with input rather than developing policy. If it is going to produce a policy I am more nervous. kcr: I am not sure that the EC is representative of everyone. It is not representative of associate members. Given this committee will probably produce a result that will have a profound effect it should include associate members. yonah: Possibly ask for volunteers and have EC select within two days. marc: I think associate members should have a voice. Have a pool and choose people randomly from the pool. Five people. cat: Agree with marc; 10 might be better. hartmans: People should have gobs of time. warlord: agree with kcr and tytso. jtkohl: Who is on EC? [someone enumerates the list] nlgillman: I don't think that people on the EC should be required to be on the committee. EC is a good starting point. Add associate members. wesommer: randomness is wonderful. Select at random from pool of volunteers. Size in 7-9 range. jhawk: I agree that associate members should be represented. Policy issues take a lot of time. Propose that the chair be ex officio member of ad-hoc committee. I move that the ad-hoc committee be created from a pool of volunteers consisting of associate and full members with 11 members. If the committee is way too skewed then the EC plays with the numbers. [second by shabby] yandros: Friendly amendment to replace and reword stuff. Discussion happens, the EC selects the committee from a pool of volunteers. mhpower: My objection to the EC method and to randomness is that the people effected by xela's behavior are such obvious stakeholders that they should obviously be represented unless they all opt out. elliot: Absolutely not. I think this is a general policy issue and should not be effected by specific circumstances. leira: Propose that pool of committee members be handled by nomination. At least we know that one person thinks they would be reasonable. Moved as an amendment. No self nominations. jhawk: Doing that who wouldn't be nominated. We might miss some people. elliot: I don't think it makes a difference. tytso: I'm willing to trust the EC to pick a committee. I think leira's concern but I think the EC will apply judgment. jewell withdraws second; amendment is not reseconded. jhawk: I move that the committee be composed of 11 members (both associate and full) selected from a pool of volunteers by the EC. marc: Straw poll: seven, nine or 11. [25-21-4] marc: EC chosen or random? [21-6] We move to extend the meeting. marc: Amend that there be two associate, 2 full, 1 EC minimum [accepted] jhawk: I move that the committee be constructed of 7 members, at least two full, at least two associate, and one EC, and be chosen by the EC from a pool of volunteers. The committee will be chosen in two days and the chair is an ex officio member.[27-0-1] passes amyv: I've known xela for the last 3.5 years; I have a unique viewpoint. Come and talk to me. kcr: I move to extend debate after a five-minute recess for 10 minutes. [second] [17-11-5] passes. xiphmont: I move that the ban on Carl Alexander be lifted immediately. [second] jcb: Propose that Carl also be informed that a committee is being formed to address process and that he be requested to avoid the office. [not accepted] marc: I move the question. [second] [7-many] fails. warlord: Regardless of any allegations, it is true that there are a large number of members and prospectives who are uncomfortable with the presence of xela in the office. wesommer: If this motion comes down to a vote I would feel compelled to vote for it. I believe this is unnecessarily divisive. I would support changing bars to asking to stay away. nlgillman: I would like to separate the issues of whether or not xela should be in the office from the motion last week. nlgillman: I move to amend that by replacing the policy with a request from the board that Carl not be in the office while we resolve these policy issues. [second] yak: I think we should pass xiphmont's motion in original form because xela will stay away from the office of his own volition. annmarie: Move to extend debate for five minutes. [second by tytso] [10-12-9] fails; we vote on the amendment. nlgillman moves to replace the motion by repealing last week's policy on Carl Alexander and by requesting that he avoid the office while issues are being resolved.[19-8-7 passes] Motion now reads as amendment. jhawk: move to extend discussion to amend to allow xela to attend meetings. [15-12-3] passes. jhawk: I move to amend and allow Carl Alexander to attend meetings. mhpower: It in effect blocks one SIPB members from attending meetings. [6-18-10] fails Back to voting on nlgillman's replacement of xiphmont's motion: I move that we repeal the policy on Carl Alexander and that the board requests that he stay away from the office while we consider these issues. [19-4-9] passes. Office Report: mhpower: Interest in increasing the amount of memory in portnoy. kcr: We allocated money to get memory for portnoy and no one has dealt. We also allocated money for memory for zorp? sly: Status of granola? It was giving ec0 failures last time I used it. marc: That is consistent with what I'm seeing. jweiss: It used to be the case that all suns in the office were beta, but portnoy was early. I moved portnoy to public because it has the tape drive. jcb: In response to which machines are in which cluster, I have updated machine labels. rjbarbal: There is a new book: CGI programming on the Web--the rat book. yak: I believe it is a mouse not a rat. I have read the book and it is good; it is worth getting. jcb: I move that we allocate $50 for this. [second white ballot] jhawk will deal. kcr: There is a book I noticed: Writing GNU Emacs Extentions. I move to allocate $50 to buy this book. jewell: I would rather us by the Elisp book. marc: It is updated constantly and is online. It wouldn't be too useful. jhawk: Does this cover stuff that is not covered by the Elisp reference? kcr: More accessible presentation. It's difficult to navigate the Elisp manual. yandros: There are serious Emacs 20 issues. [9-6-7] passes. shabby: Any way we can get voicemail for these phones for meetings? [shabby will investigate.] jhawk: Carpet update? No updates heard. rjbarbal: The office was reasonably clean before the meeting. Take junk with you. Office Cleaning Report: () MIT Computing Report: marc: April 1, MIT was bought buy Disney, web.mit.edu claimed. Computer Services: tb: I am looking for a place to put the GNU Hurd and GNU Source archives. The current servers are under the control of rms. tb: Estimate on the order of under 100M. tb: No non-Athena access. tytso: If this turns out to be contentious then I'll drop it. It has come to my attention that the com_err and ss libraries are used in places where the SIPB copyright is inconvenient. It is in the Debian Linux distribution and Kerberos. I would like to remove the requirement to mention SIPB in the docs. jhawk: Why is this difficult? tytso: There is a religious argument and you have to include the entire copyright. wesommer: I would support changing to mention SIPB instead of the entire copyright, but not removing entirely. warlord: We are supposedly going to get more AFS hardware. jhawk: One is a new AFS server. We got that; it hasn't been dealt with. I was going to deal over IAP. I believe that ghudson is dealing with new disks. jweiss: I'm not sure it has happened. jhawk: I'll deal with ghudson WRT ordering disks. jhawk: zsr will be leaving us. This provides head space. SIPB Backup Report: jweiss: kretch is doing AFS. Not all UFS happened but some did. foley: I would like to get another backup maintainer if possible. I'm still confused about where the Exabyte is. Publications Report: elliot: We are OK. R/O Report: () IAP Report: () CokeComm Report: kcr: sucks Other: sit: The mozilla locker contains sources. marc: A Linux binary with crypto has already been announced. Other Other: warlord: Tomorrow is my seven-day anniversary of owning a new Saturn. tb: I didn't know they ran that long. The meeting was adjourned at 23:50. Minutes taken and submitted by hartmans.