Table of Contents 1. OPENING a) Introduction b) Structure of the Student Conferencing Project (SCP) c) Relationship with the Information Technology Division (ITD) 2. PROBLEMATIC BEHAVIOR a) Disruptions that don't violate the Responsible Use Policy (COU) but are destructive to the conference b) Violations of COU that aren't a direct threat c) Direct threats to others d) Suicide threats 3. ALTERING OF MATERIAL a) The rule b) Exceptions c) Removal/Deletion of text 4. PSEUDONYMOUS AND ALIAS NAMES a) Registering under an alias b) Types of aliases (offensive, resembling real names, etc.) c) Pseudonymous and anonymous responses d) Dealing with entries made by unknown authors e) Organizers' ability to break pseudos 5. ORGANIZER SELECTION a) Eligibility requirements b) Election procedures c) Meet-Students (M-S) organizer selection d) Meet-Ourselves (M-O) and Meet-Planners (M-P) organizer selection e) General guidelines for organizer selection, all conferences f) Elections with the minimum number (or less) candidates 6. ORGANIZER RESPONSIBILITIES a) Conference startup b) Division of labor c) Messages d) Community standards e) Indexing, summarizing and entering items f) General guidelines (uses and abuses of organizer powers) g) Shutdown h) Emeritus organizers 7. FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS (FTFs) 1. OPENING 1a) Introduction What is Meet-Wisdom? Near the end of Meet:Planners1 (M-P1) on MTS, many participants felt that we should try to pull out the principles and guidelines of running the Student Conferencing Project (SCP) conferences from the mass of discussion held on M-P1. The collected wisdom here is something like a constitution condensed out of our experience, and was initially approved on July 28, 1988. In 1992, we realized that this document needed some major revisions, and set out to make this document reflect the the current "policy" of the SCP. The revisions were approved on November 8, 1992. In fall of 1994, we moved the SCP conferences from MTS Confer II to the Unix Confer U. At that time, there were three left: Meet-Students (M-S), Meet-Planners (M-P), and Meet-Ourselves (M-O). This document applied to these and any future SCP conferences which might be created. In summer of 1997, Meet-Wisdom was revised again to remove all old MTS and Keepers references, as well as outdated information. Copies of the conferences Meet:Planners1 and Meet:Planners(2) have been brought over to Confer U, and are called Meet-Planners1 and Meet-Planners2. This document is not meant to be the entire list of rules defining what an organizer can and cannot do. The SCP believes that the organizers should not have their hands completely tied by a cumbersome set of rules; based on the nature of the SCP conferences, there will always be gray areas with some issues, and we encourage discussion to deal with those issues. The most important 'rule' is to try and use organizer powers only when truly necessary. If you're not sure about the rules stated in this document, or whether M-P has discussed an issue in the past that didn't make it into this text, we encourage you to ask other M-P participants. We also encourage you to read through the older items of both M-P1 and M-P2. When faced with a problem, the most important thing is to try to use common sense. Remember to include the participants involved; if the discussion is brought to M-P, invite the involved participants and point them to the appropriate item. Also, always try to act calmly, even if you must sign off for a while to calm down. Problems or concerns should be solved with this document; if it is not possible, raise the issue in M-P and try to solve it without modification of this document. If it is not possible to do so, the proposed modification must be composed or presented at a Face-to-Face meeting (FTF), with the Information Technology Division (ITD) Liaison present if possible, then voted on in M-P. 1b) Structure of the SCP Confer U was written by Robert Parnes, who is referenced throughout this document. The early history of the SCP can be found in item 2 of M-P, and that text (and more) is present in the file Meet-History. M-P is the organizing conference where SCP policy matters are discussed. It is expected that the organizers of the other SCP conferences participate in M-P and involve themselves in M-P as well as in their own conferences. The M-P organizer is someone who can usually be consulted for advice, but the opinions of the M-P organizer are of no greater weight than the opinions of any other participant. 1c) Relationship with ITD The SCP receives its financial support from ITD. The ITD liaison works with the SCP by attending beginning of the term FTFs when possible, by approving of changes to this document or other guidelines, and by generally being available to assist with problems as they arise. Organizers who are having problems should first go to the M-P organizer before going to ITD directly. In addition, organizers should be aware of the University's usage policies. http://www.umich.edu/~wwwitd/policies/usepolicy.html (Responsible Use Policy) covers ITD's guidelines for use, and http://www.umich.edu/~wwwitd/policies/usepolicy.html (Proper Use Policy) contains the University's proper use policy. The ITD User Advocates can be contacted if the organizer feels that someone is violating the rules (send email to itd.user.advocate@umich.edu). REFERENCES: M-P1: Item 190 (ITD expectations), Item 211 (accounting structure of the SCP) M-P2: Item 2 (early history of the SCP) Item 34 (ITD Liaison) 2. PROBLEMATIC BEHAVIOR 2a) Disruptions that don't violate the Responsible Use Policy (COU) but are destructive to the conference Philosophy: Keep as many people active as possible while maintaining the conference. Work with the disruptors to help them find some other way to meet their needs (such as private conferences). Suggest that the participants try to resolve the problem amongst themselves before stepping in and getting involved. Action: The hardest part of these situations is deciding whether a problem exists, and what it is. If participants complain about a particular pattern of responding or material, and if the organizers of that conference agree that it is a problem, they should make the initial decision on what to say to the offender. The first message to the participant should state the problem and offer to help the individual find a more acceptable way to enjoy the conference. Note that the above describes destructive behavior by a single participant, or at most a small set. The participants should be dealt with on a one-to-one basis, rather than setting up a sweeping policy affecting everyone just to remove disruptions by a small handful. If the problem continues, the organizers of the conference should assess how seriously it bothers other participants: by mail, by discussion in that conference, or by discussion in M-P. They should inform the offenders that the discussion is taking place, and where. An explicit part of this discussion should be whether the material should be retired, or the conference restricted from these individuals. Depending on the results of the discussion and the persistence of the problem, the offender should be warned, and then access suspended or restricted. If restriction isn't warranted, some statement to that effect should be entered in M-P for further discussion. Note that Confer U is capable of restricting access to one or more of its features without affecting the other features. A participant's ability to post bulletins, for example, can be taken away without affecting that participant's ability to respond to items, send TRANSes, enter items, etc. The command CHANGE SOURCE FORCE ? has information on how to selectively restrict access, and the participant should only lose access to the area which he/she is abusing. 2b) Violations of COU that aren't a direct threat Philosophy: Keep as many people active in conferences as possible while promoting discussion of topics and ideas. Contact or refer participants to the User Advocates as necessary (send email to itd.user.advocate@umich.edu). Actions: Conference organizers contact the person(s) and inform them of COU's stipulations and the fact that their responses appear to be in violation. Ask if there is miscommunication involved and offer help to communicate more clearly. (Note: Still have to decide what to do with the material. Suggestion: Retire it.) If the participant continues COU violations, the second message should warn that the items appear to be COU violations, and that the organizers have a responsibility to stop this. The organizers should give an explicit warning of restricted access (for this and all future references to restricted access, see section 2a). The organizers should also start an item in M-P and contact the User Advocates if they haven't been contacted already. If the COU violations still continue, limit the participant's access with an email stating why and if/when the student's access can be restored to normal. Suggestion: limitations are for the remainder of the term. 2c) Direct threats to others Philosophy: Ensure that the person threatened is not harmed. There is immediate concern, and the response should be as fast as possible. Action: If something occurs on a conference that requires immediate and extreme measures, an organizer of that conference and any M-P participants on-line at the time should consult quickly. If necessary, the organizer of M-P, the User Advocate, campus security, or other members of the community should be consulted. In addition, action may need to be taken to immediately suspend or restrict confer access of the offenders. See section 2a, which discusses restricted access, and use the command CHANGE SOURCE FORCE ? for information on how to restrict access selectively. When the immediate threat has been dealt with, those involved should enter a response or item in M-P describing what happened so that further actions can be considered. 2d) Suicide threats Philosophy: While most organizers are not trained to deal with such situations, it is important that any comments made on the conferences be taken seriously and ultimately dealt with by professionals. Actions: There are organizations on campus whose members are specifically trained to handle suicidal people. The organizers should contact these groups when a suicide threat (or possible threat) appears in a conference. If an organizer is unsure if a response is a threat, he or she may consult with others online, but if there is still doubt then he or she should refer the response to the appropriate organizations. REFERENCES: M-P1: Items 66:6, 67:8, and the firefighting/vandalism index category M-P2: Items 7,35,43,74,83,91(esp. 91:40-42), Item 121 (suicidal participants), Item 101 and the summary to item 46 (the last two point to incidents in M-P1) 3. ALTERING OF MATERIAL 3a) The rule The organizers are, with the following exceptions, prohibited from editing, retiring, removing, deleting, or otherwise altering any material entered in the SCP conferences without the express consent of the original author. If action is taken that falls under the exceptions below, the organizer MUST go to M-P and give a description of the incident and the actions taken. If appropriate (see below), text that is removed may be entered into the M-P discussion as well. 3b) Exceptions The following entries may be changed without prior consultation with the author, but the author should be informed (if possible) that the action has taken place: * If material is entered and the author is unknown, *and it mentions another person, by name or by inference*, that item or comment shall be considered the "property" of the person mentioned, and can be edited or retired at *that* person's request. Section 4d defines what is meant by the term "unknown author" and describes the actions that an organizer can use to deal with those situations. Retiring is preferable to editing, and editing should only involve changing the name of the person mentioned or other personal information (i.e. address, phone number, credit card number, etc.). Note that responses made by alias participants do NOT qualify under this exception, while responses made anonymously or pseudonymously (those flagged by the !) do qualify. Responses made by alias participants (participants who do not register under their real names) should be treated the same as those made by participants using their real names - the organizers should let the participants themselves try to work out a solution. If that fails, the organizer may attempt to mediate the discussion, or may bring the matter (and the participants) to M-P for discussion. See also part 2a of this document for more suggestions on dealing with the participants. * If an organizer feels that any material is so slanderous or obscene as to warrant immediate retiring; and the author is anonymous, can't be contacted, or refuses to alter the material, the organizer should retire the offending material, and enter an item in M-P including the text of the retired material, requesting confirmation from the membership that the action was warranted. 3c) Removal/Deletion of text Only in the most extreme cases (e.g. someone posts someone else's social security, credit card, or home phone number) should the organizer even consider deleting or editing text without the participant's permission beforehand. In any deletion, the organizer should: * Try to consult with other M-P participants to determine if this is the correct manner of action. * If the text is in a response, the original text should be saved to a file (RESP : file= will work to save that file in your confer home directory), and then the response should be edited to remove that information, and an appropriate statement should be added noting the editing. If an item's text needs to be deleted, the organizer should copy the item text to a file (by typing I NOR FILE=, where is the item #), and then the text should be deleted by editing the text of the item, replacing it with a note such as "Text removed by the organizer". * Notify M-P of the action, and notify the participants involved that the discussion is taking place in M-P. The organizer will give a summary of the text that was deleted, but will not post the text itself. It will be determined in M-P whether the information removed will be made public, based on the description given by the organizers. REFERENCES: M-P2: Items 156 and 171, and section 6f. Item 5, items 89 and 90 (see their summaries as well), item 95 (take the test in the item text), items 98,114,123,126, and 149 (various discussions about what an organizer can freeze and/or retire). 4. PSEUDONYMS AND ALIAS NAMES 4a) Registering under an alias A participant who registers in a conference with a name other than his or her given name is said to have taken on an alias. In M-O and M-P, we strongly discourage participants to register with aliases, and people who do so are asked by the organizers to CHANGE NAME to their real name. Originally, it was believed that allowing alias name registration in M-S would be problematic, and allowing some aliases to exist would set a bad precedent. As the conference grew, more people, including organizers, wished to allow alias registration in M-S without requiring those participants to include their name in the introduction. Current SCP policy is to allow alias registration in M-S, although a participant using a alias must recognize that he or she does not have exclusive rights to that alias. If another participant were to join M-S in a subsequent semester and choose the same alias, he or she would be entitled to do so. It is up to those two participants, and not the organizers, to resolve any problems between them. The file containing our policy is mentioned when people first sign onto M-S. 4b) Types of aliases (offensive, resembling real names, etc.) Non-offensive aliases (such as "Star and Moon Aligned") are currently allowed in M-S, although participants are encouraged to use their real names. An offensive alias (e.g. Nick the Dick) is different because then we have a problem not only with the precedent it sets, but also that such an alias may be offputting, offensive, harassing, etc. The preferred course of action is a message and dialogue with the participant, with the organizers and M-P ultimately deciding if the offensive alias should be CHANGE REMOVEd (e.g. if someone registered as M L King with a really racist introduction) or if the alias should be tolerated as free speech. Those will all be judgment calls depending on the alias and the person's use of it. If the alias name should be CHANGE REMOVEd, the participant will be notified of the decision. (It is hoped that the participant would be aware of the entire discussion, not just the outcome.) If the participant feels that the decision is unfair, he or she may go to the User Advocate for an appeal of the decision. A third type of alias is one that is commonly used as a pseudonymous response. One example is a name like Anonymous. Such names are to be discouraged, again beginning with messages asking that participant to change the name. A fourth type of alias is one that intentionally resembles the name of another participant, such as Bob Parmes, Lenr Kamlet or Dave Winkle. In cases where the name could potentially cause confusion, again messages should be sent to those participants, with discussion in M-P if a problem remains. 4c) Pseudonymous and anonymous responses (those flagged by the !) Pseudonymous and anonymous responses serve two main purposes. In some cases, a pseudonymous or anonymous response allows the participant some degree of confidentiality, so that he or she may speak more freely about a topic than he or she might have under a real name or traceable name. In other instances, a pseudonymous response allows the participant to assume a role, often related to the topic. Both uses are accepted in any of the SCP conferences. 4d) Dealing with entries made by unknown authors If a participant (X) mentions another person's real name in an item or response, the person mentioned should be able to contact X to resolve problems. If the person mentioned cannot contact X, then he or she should have some alternative action. When the person X is not contactable through a TRANS, the author is considered to be unknown. If a participant is mentioned by a response to which he or she is not able to send a trans to the author, then that response "belongs" to the participant mentioned. The most common cases are pseudonymous or anonymous responses, and responses where the response author changes his or her name after responding. The response may be retired by an organizer at the request of the participant mentioned. If further action is requested (e.g. the participant asks for the response to be deleted), then the matter should come to M-P for discussion before any such action is taken. This also applies to a pseudonymous response that closely resembles another participant's real name (like Erna-Lynn rather than Erna-Lynne). Exception: This policy applies only to references to a participant's real name. Responses which mention alias names of participants are not covered. The SCP cannot enforce protection of aliases, while we can rely on ITD to protect peoples' real names. This warning will be publicized in M-S at the time of registration, and participants will have information concerning the rights of alias participants made available to them. (See section 2b.) 4e) Organizers' ability to break pseudos Under the current setup of Confer U, to find the true identity behind a pseudonymous or anonymous response requires the following: * An organizer with MASTER powers sends a request to conferu@umich.edu * One of the Confer U managers runs a program which reveals the identity of the participant only to the organizer requesting the information. Since there is already a built-in delay, only the M-P organizer has MASTER powers; this also prevents current organizers from accidentally changing permissions to remove organizer powers from the M-P organizer. If a pseudonymous or anonymous response needs to be "broken", discussion should take place in M-P, and if deemed appropriate, the M-P organizer will take action. Only in an extreme emergency (such as a suicidal participant, or SEVERE trashing of the conference) should a pseudo be broken. REFERENCES: M-P2: items 3,25,60,80,108,121,132 5. ORGANIZER SELECTION: 5a) Eligibility requirements Organizers of M-S should be enrolled or continuing students at U-M, and never have organized M-S before. (Continuing means that the person was previously a student and will be enrolled within the next two terms.) Organizational priority for M-P and M-O is given to students, but student status is not required. All SCP candidates should be active members of the conference they wish to organize; must be willing to organize within the guidelines of this document; and must participate (upon election) in M-P. Also, the candidates must have access to confer for the duration of their time as organizer. (This does not include, for example, spring break or a weekend visit home, but does affect those who might not be around for the summer half term, or a PhD student who might leave in October.) When declaring his or her candidacy, the candidate should state that these eligibility requirements have been met; no person will be considered a candidate without meeting these requirements. Technical knowledge of unix or confer may be helpful, but is not required; organizing is viewed in part as a learning experience. 5b) Election procedures M-S selects organizers for one-year terms with regular elections. M-O and M-P select their organizers for an indefinite term through a consensus-based process. Both processes are described below. 5c) M-S Organizer Selection M-S organizers are usually chosen three times a year for a one-year term in August, December and April. (The terms are staggered.) Both M-P and M-S organizers are chosen on M-P. Organizers for M-S are elected at a time which coincides with semesters here, elections occurring a few weeks before the end of the previous term. There will be three organizers in each of the Fall and Winter terms, and two or three in the Spring/Summer term. A bulletin will be posted in M-S by the current M-S organizers about a month before the end of each term. Participants who are interested in organizing M-S may say so at any point in the term prior to the end of the nomination period, which will be approximately two weeks after the bulletins are posted, if at least one participant is nominated. After the nomination period ends, the eligibility of the candidates will be checked, and the candidates should answer the questions in the appropriate item of M-P as well as any questions from other M-P participants. The questioning period for M-S organizer candidates will be similar to that for M-P elections, and will also last for one week. The M-S organizers should enter a bulletin into M-S announcing who the candidates are and asking people to participate in the election process in M-P. Again, if there are serious reservations about any of the candidates, they should be raised at this time. If it seems necessary, the questioning period may be extended or nominations may reopen. At the end of the questioning period, an election will be held in a separate item on M-P, and the election will last three days. Votes must be signed with the full last name of the participant voting. M-S organizers are responsible for entering the bulletins and informing the M-P organizer that the items should be prepared. The M-P organizer is responsible for maintaining the summaries for the items. M-S will try to restart by the first day of classes every term. The current organizers will meet with the newly elected organizers to help them set up the new conference. 5d) M-O and M-P Organizer Selection M-O and M-P organizers are chosen when the current organizers resign their positions. Organizers for M-O are sought and selected in items in that conference rather than in M-P. The resigning organizer is usually responsible for initiating the search for a successor. The community of participants selects an organizer from among its members. Organizers are selected after discussion among candidates, usually by unanimous acclamation of the participants. The decision is announced in M-P. 5e) General guidelines for organizer selection, all conferences Because the SCP conducts all its affairs on-line, we expect that candidates for organizership will keep up with the selection discussion during the election process. If this is not the case, then it is the CANDIDATE'S responsibility to find a M-P participant who will communicate the candidate's wishes/responses in the appropriate items. It cannot be the responsibility of individual M-P participants to follow up personally on anyone who announces a desire to organize and then never comes back. If for some reason a participant is unable to vote in an election, he or she may vote absentee by sending a message or other form of communication to the M-P organizer. 5f) Elections with the minimum number (or less) candidates The term "the minimum number of candidates" refers to the situation where there are N candidates for N positions. If, at the end of the nomination period, there are less than the minimum number of candidates running, then the nomination period may be extended. If, at the end of the nomination period, there is only the minimum number of candidates (and not more), then all of the candidates must be approved by at least 50% of M-P. When there is only the minimum number of candidates, the SCP might end up with an organizer that a majority does not approve of. This can be dangerous, especially in conferences such as M-P where there is only one organizer. To avoid the possibility that someone will become an SCP organizer simply because nobody else would run, in these elections the 50% standard will be used. In the voting item, M-P participants who care to voice their opinions will vote for or against a candidate, or will abstain. For conferences with only one organizer, the number of 'Yes' votes must be greater than the number of 'No's and abstentions (which might mean that the abstainer needs to know more about the candidate before he or she feels comfortable voting for that candidate). Only those voters who have signed a vote will be counted in this process. For elections with more than one organizer (such as M-S with 2 or 3), each organizer must have approval from more than 50% of the voters. So if 20 people total vote, each candidate must have at least 11 'yes' votes. If one or more candidates fail to gain the 50% required, then the nominations will reopen for the number of spots not filled. Hopefully, discussion will be taking place concurrently, explaining why people feel so uncomfortable with the candidate. The candidate is welcome to address any problems that are brought up, and may run in the new election (which will have the same format as the previous one). This new election should have a similar timeframe as well: approximately one week for nominations, three days for questions, and three days for voting. REFERENCES: M-P1: Items 55 (M-S orgs of M-S1 resign; start M-S org selection process in M-P) Item 142:17 (more of same philosophy) Item 193 (election that began asking questions of the orgs) M-P2: Items 6,18,19 (general), 66(absentee), 48, 65, 102-106 (when to hold M-S and M-P elections), 110-111 (changing M-P from once-a-term to once-a-year). Items 122 and 129 (the 50% rule in part 5f) 6. ORGANIZER RESPONSIBILITIES 6a). Conference startup * Formulate and enter initial items, introductory message, banner, etc. Organizer will have help from emeriti organizers in this. * Enter Organizer Defined Commands (ODC's). The M-P organizer will be responsible for permitting the new organizers with their new organizer powers. REFERENCES: M-P1: ITEMS 51, 104, 183:28 -- startup and ODC's 200:2, 125:4 -- general organizer information M-P2: Items 59,61,81, and 137 6b) Division of labor All organizers will have their full names on the banner. The following of items, indexing, "police" duties, and message duties can be divided as the organizers see fit, as long as each item is followed by at least one organizer. For certain items like foreign language items, the organizers may appoint someone else (often the item author) to follow the conversation and report any problems. REFERENCES: M-P1: ITEMS 84 - proposals for changing M-S organization 28,76,117,138,170 - general organizing and conference structure 6c) Messages One organizer should be made responsible for replying to participants who reply to the introductory message. This organizer will be set as the osender of the introductory message. All organizers should send "standards maintenance" messages to discourage participants from item trashing, misuse of pseudos, etc. All organizers should be ready to meet with participants if online messages fail to resolve a problem after a reasonable amount of time. 6d) Community standards Organizers should maintain a reasonably high-profile presence on the conference and should encourage (in items and responses) good behavior, order, and civility. Don't threaten, but a little wheedling and cajoling here and there won't hurt. Usually a gentle suggestion will help get a drifting item back on track, for example. While an SCP conference should be a pleasant and friendly environment, it is preferred that the entire community, rather than just the organizers, try to keep serious conversations serious, and fluff items separate from the serious. REFERENCES: M-P1: ITEMS: 44, 47 -- pseudos 67 -- item drift and fluff 199 -- deletion of offensive material 53 -- unauthorized circulation of items 66, 93, 162 -- firefighting M-P2: Items 68,70 (drift/fluff) items relating to other sections here (pseudos, altering of material etc.) 6e) Indexing, summarizing, and entering items * The organizers should keep the index up to date. Fast-moving or important items should also be summarized in a timely fashion. * Organizers should also be users of the conference; in particular, they should take the initiative and enter items as it seems appropriate. * At least one organizer must follow each item in case of an emergency like the Bad Jokes item (see items 194 and 199 in M-P1). REFERENCES: M-P1: ITEM 87 -- indexing 6f) General guidelines (uses and abuses of organizer power) * "DON'T DO ANYTHING YOU COULDN'T DO AS AN ORDINARY PARTICIPANT UNLESS YOU HAVE TO." When do you have to? Well, obviously you have duties like indexing which require you to use your organizer powers. Obviously some extreme situations in firefighting may require you to depermit a participant at least temporarily. If the author of an item asks you to retire it, then you obviously should. There are a few other obvious situations. In situations which are not obvious (such as breaking the pseudonym of someone who's being disruptive but not threatening), the best course is to do nothing until you've entered an item in M-P (and in your own conference, if the topic isn't too sensitive) asking for a consensus. Some situations clearly represent an abuse of organizer powers, such as publicizing the true identity behind a broken pseudo. * "DON'T DO ANYTHING YOU CAN'T UNDO." For example, responses to be removed should be retired, not deleted. * "DON'T DO ANYTHING IN A HURRY IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO WAIT". It's always better to ask the participants and M-P about something than take an action on your own initiative which may be controversial. * "YOU'RE A PARTICIPANT, TOO. BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AS WELL AS A GOOD PARENT." * "IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE AUTHORITY TO USE A POWER THAT AN ORGANIZER HAS, THEN DON'T USE IT". Examples are retiring responses that are not on-topic without the permission of the author BEFOREHAND; or CHANGE REMOVING a participant because you don't like his/her alias name. Messages are usually much more useful than actions in getting the cooperation of a participant. REFERENCES: M-P1: all, but especially 125:4, 200:2 -- organizing in general and the firefighting items referred to above. M-P2: Item 78 and 166 (these are general 'Role of Org' items for M-S and M-P) Also, item 7. 6g) Shutdown * The organizers should enter items calling for new organizer nominations and discussion in their conference and in M-P at the appropriate time, and bulletins directing the participants' attention to these items. * Two weeks before the shutdown date, organizers should enter a bulletin warning participants about the impending shutdown. This bulletin should be re-entered (with the appropriate text changes) one week before shutdown. * The summaries and index should be up to date before the conference is frozen. 6h) Emeritus organizers After an organizer's term is finished, the organizer becomes an emeritus organizer. While we realize that some organizers may not be around after they are done organizing (due to graduation, summer, etc.), we hope those organizers who are still around will remain active in the SCP and in other conferences. In addition to continued involvement in M-P, we would like our emeriti to: * Set up the files for the new conference if necessary. * Help the new organizers learn to edit the source file, index, and all other organizer-related duties. * Be available to help out the new organizers if they need the help. * Recruit volunteers to organize future incarnations of the conference. 7. FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS Regular FTFs will be scheduled for the second Thursday of LSA classes of fall and winter terms. They will be at 7PM in the Tap Room of the Michigan Union. If something comes up: most people can't make it, the Tap Room is unavailable, etc. the current organizer of M-P will be responsible for coming up with alternative plans. What will be discussed? * Meeting the new organizers. Making sure they know basic organizer duties such as indexing. Also make sure they know who is available for what kind of help. * Issues tabled from the last FTF. Do they need to be brought up again? * Major issues brought up during the term where consensus was not reached and which still seem important. This is a basic skeleton of an agenda. The current organizer of M-P is responsible for coming up with a more complete one for the FTF, and for putting it on-line to solicit comments and additions. REFERENCES: M-P2: Item 9