[2699] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
[Mit-talk] Fwd: Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robotica)
Wed Oct 18 11:29:04 2006
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:28:20 -0400
From: Robotica <androidqueen@gmail.com>
To: mit-talk@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9bde964c0610180759p6b2b507bua5d53d6cec716b9@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
stupid reply-to-all
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robotica <androidqueen@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2006 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
To: Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu>
so even if you assume those articles imply that the logarhythms said
they would let other groups share ownership and use the studio for
free, you expect the logarhythms to abide by an implied "social
contract" made 3 years ago by (presumably) different people than those
who are currently in the group now? maybe i've just spent too much
time away from MIT, but that just strikes me as ridiculous. (like
when MIT sends me mail asking me to "give something back.") if the
UA had *something* in writing, they might have a leg to stand on, but
the way things stand, it seems pretty cut and dried to me.
On 10/18/06, Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu> wrote:
> 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.
> >
>
--
ninjaneer. geomancer. licensed scientician.
--
ninjaneer. geomancer. licensed scientician.
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
