Minor annoyances and Temporary setbacks

Indian food being served in the Brunch Bowl as part of India Week

We had the first computer class for Multivariate Methods today. Unfortunately I had to spend the first half hour of it not participating but instead sitting there deleting reams of stuff. This was because when I tried to save the data set that we needed for the class from the public folders it said my directory was full, and then I got an email saying I was using 206% of my quota. Now, I would swear I haven't been saving any 100MB files within even the last week. Which means that if I was using 206% of my 100MB quota this morning at 10 am, I must have been using more than 100% of my quota for some time. Judging by how much I had to get rid of, I would say I must have gone over the limit some time last term in fact. What I would like to know is why I wasn't sent an email when I first exceeded 100MB, instead of waiting till I exceeded 200%. I had no idea that I was so much over- I imagined I had plenty of space left. If I had been told I'd gone over I would have got rid of some stuff right then, and it would not have had to be so much that it took half an hour to do, and more importantly I wouldn't have had to do it during a computer class when I should have been learning. And I wouldn't have had to get rid of so much of last term's work which I slaved over for hours- I would have transferred it to my laptop by email or by some other means, and would thus not have lost it.

I was pretty annoyed by this at the time, but it soon came to seem like a minor annoyance when it was put in perspective by the UGM. It was quite a good week- there was a very low turn-out, but we got through a lot of motions, and it was all pretty entertaining. Though I didn't think it happened to be the best ever week from a point of view of representativeness for the lady from the BBC who had come to sit in on it. But the end was pretty depressing. Our Sutherland motion finally got its turn to be debated, and to begin with I was happy because there had been quite a few motions on the paper before it and I was worried we wouldn't get to it- and this was the last week it would be on the paper before having to be resubmitted and join the queue again. But about a third of the way through the debate it became clear to me that the applause was louder for the speakers and questionners against the motion, and I wasn't really surprised when it fell- though the vote was close enough for C&S to be called on stage to count the hands.

I don't quite understand how I never noticed or questionned it while we were all discussing the wording of the motion a few weeks ago before we submitted it, but a questionner drew attention to the first item in the Resolves section, 'to oppose the appointment of Peter Sutherland as LSE chair of council', and at that point I thought 'Oh no'. It didn't seem right to me to be putting that in the motion about the referendum, untill the first speaker for explained that this was because of his not having been appointed with sufficient student input. I could see what he meant, though it might have been better phrased 'oppose the appointment...pending a referendum', but I'm not sure he convinced those who were undecided or opposed.

Any impact this may have had though was probably negligeable compared to the effect of the composition of the audience present today. Though its being a small turn-out could have worked in favour of either side, depending on which viewpoint was represented even less than the other, in fact as was hinted at by the volume of applause for the respective speakers and questions, and then became clearer by the vote, the anti-Sutherlanders were apparently outnumbered. Or so I thought. But someone against the motion asked for it to be a carded vote like for the Palestine motion last week (where members have to vote holding their cards in the air to show that they are indeed members), and I heard later that actually some of the anti-Sutherlanders present didn't have their cards with them. I also found out that the motion fell by just six votes. So not such a defeat as it originally seemed.

I thought when it fell that that was that for that avenue- that even if there was no technical rule against submitting a fallen motion, in practice it would be pointless as those against would just point out that the UGM had already voted against it once and we were just wasting their time. But when I checked my email a few hours later, the plan seemed to be to revise the motion and submit it again. So now I am feeling more optimistic- with better phrasing, and most importantly with another chance to get the audience composition right (quite a few anti-Sutherlanders didn't make it this time) we may yet pass it!

Incidentally, a lot of the arguments used by the speakers against the motion seemed rather suspect to me. Not only were they coming from the firm standpoint that the appointment was legitimate (which it was if you ignore side issues like the 'blackmailing' and intimidation of the then General Secretary of the Students' Union which prevented him from disclosing Sutherland's name and guaging student opinion before the process was completed, and if you take legitimate in the sense of 'following the current process as set out in the constitution'- but that doesn't mean the process was fair or a good process or that we shouldn't be protesting against this process), but the General Secretary (who was the first speaker against) made the repeated point that although he was in favour of referenda on appointments in general, a referendum would be pointless in this case as it would be retrospective, since the appointment had already been settled. The big flaw here of course is that it was not possible to have a non-retrospective referendum, the previous General Secretary not being allowed to reveal the name till after the appointment was completed. And given that the process of appointment is not at the moment being changed (and would never be if all students took the speakers against's line and declared that an appointment could not be protested on procedural grounds if it followed the proceedure as currently defined), I'm not quite sure when the General Secretary imagines these future non-retrospective referenda that he is in favour of being carried out.

(Reluctantly) leaving the topic of the Sutherland motion, we had the first presentations in Surveys and Experiment Design today. I was slightly late because I went to the library after the UGM and checked my email, thinking 'Yeah, yeah, Surveys and Experiment Design is at 3, right?', but then when I actually looked in my diary I found it was two. Luckily I didn't miss very much (though I hope I didn't interrupt the flow of the poor guy doing his presentation as I came in). Though I'd read the papers for both presentations, as the lecturer said we were expected to, I didn't think I'd be able to contribute much- some points occurred to me for each paper but I thought they would probably be covered in the presentations or put better by other more statistically experienced students or just not in fact be any good because I was wrong about them or they were right but uninteresting. But actually I was happy to find I could make quite a contribution- including a point that the lecturer said he hadn't considered. So I felt pleased with that!

It snowed a little again this morning, but it didn't settle- it was just falling as I stepped outside. It's certainly cold enough. I dread to think what it's like back home, where even while we were having the mild autumn in London last term I was having to sleep with two hot water bottles when I went back. Though it was mild there too in the day. I wonder if they've had snow too- and if it settled quite deeply?