[2698] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M Kelch)
Wed Oct 18 10:41:15 2006
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:40:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu>
To: Robotica <androidqueen@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9bde964c0610180701q106727efs3e67eb098cff3e2b@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N15/14Logstudio.15n.html
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N22/22studio.22n.html
These articles describe a social contract beyond the text of the bill. The
arbiter is intended to settle once and for all what the terms of that
social contract were supposed to entail.
Preemptively: No, the UA is not in the habit of getting in to other
peoples negotiations. But this particular one affects significant Finboard
allocations and so a facilitated discussion was deemed necessary by the
Senate.
Steve
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Robotica wrote:
> On 10/18/06, Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu> wrote:
>> "A resolution that completely removed the studio from control of the Logs
>> would not pass. I don't understand your objection to asking them to honor
>> their agreement from 4 years ago."
>
> steven:
>
> perhaps i am reading the wrong bill, but as i read it it says:
>
> "Whereas, the other a cappella groups on campus support the Logs in
> building a recording studio and have agreed to cede control of some
> office space to allow the Logs to build the studio provided that they
> will eventually be able to uses the studio;"
>
> nowhere in there does it say that said groups would be able to use it
> for free (or, for that matter, *when* they would be able to use it).
> what am i missing?
>
> -m
>
> --
> ninjaneer. geomancer. licensed scientician.
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
