[1296] in UA Senate
RE: Laptops
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael E Plasmeier)
Sun Apr 24 23:27:01 2011
From: Michael E Plasmeier <theplaz@MIT.EDU>
To: Betsy Riley <rileyb@mit.edu>
CC: Jonte Craighead <jontec@mit.edu>,
Jessica Chen
<jessicachen.dbhs@gmail.com>,
Geoffrey G Thomas <geofft@mit.edu>,
"Karan
Takhar" <kstakhar4691@gmail.com>,
Timothy E Robertson <tim_r@mit.edu>,
"ua-senate@mit.edu" <ua-senate@mit.edu>,
Daniel D Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:26:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikfARCws2eecyqHcQr2SkBiNiYJfw@mail.gmail.com>
--_000_60826A506BCDE447B39C85C1496EAB7403E2ADFB1CEXPO7exchange_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I disagree. I am glad that the Online Study Group has decided to give us a=
n update of what they are working on. I realized that they don't want thei=
r ideas stolen and publicized nationally before MIT has made a decision. I=
feel that responsible members of Senate should have the confidence to work=
with confidential information.
This is the only way we get input into these things. Requiring everything =
to be open will get the UA nowhere.
-Plaz
From: Betsy Riley [mailto:rileyb@MIT.EDU]
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:21 PM
To: Daniel D Hawkins
Cc: Jonte Craighead; Jessica Chen; Geoffrey G Thomas; Karan Takhar; Michael=
E Plasmeier; Timothy E Robertson; ua-senate@mit.edu
Subject: Re: Laptops
It has been really helpful in the past to have records of what our guest sp=
eakers say. Although I think that Hawkins's idea of starting on-the-record =
is better than having the entire discussion be off-the-record, it makes us =
look uncoordinated and inconsistent if Jont=E9 has already agreed to allowi=
ng the Online Study Group guests to have the discussion off-the-record (if =
this isn't the case, Jont=E9, please correct me). I think that it would be =
ideal if Jont=E9 contacted the Online Study Group guests asap and informed =
them that Senate does not actually want the discussion to be off-the-record=
, as this is not in line with current precedent, we have found it very bene=
ficial to have on-the-record comments in the past, etc.
I'm curious what anyone thinks Senate will gain from knowing off-the-record=
information if we can't quote it later. I don't think that Senate has done=
much, if any, strategy this year or passed many, if any, bills of the sort=
that would benefit from knowing confidential information. On the other han=
d, Senate, exec, and in fact any undergrad would benefit from having docume=
nted statements from the administration. Therefore I think that having any =
on-the-record information from the Online Study Group is more useful than h=
earing unquotable, off-the-record information, even if it there is more of =
it.
Betsy
2011/4/24 Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu<mailto:hwkns@mit.edu>>
Also, importantly, on-the-record or off-the-record doesn't have to apply to=
the entire meeting. Perhaps it would be best to start everything on the r=
ecord and remind our guests that they are free to request off-the-record di=
scussion at any point, and that we will decide whether it is appropriate. =
Thoughts on that?
-hwkns
2011/4/24 Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu<mailto:hwkns@mit.edu>>
Hi all,
Sorry I just saw this thread. I wanted to clear some things up, as the stu=
dent rep to the MIT-Online Faculty Study Group. I'm glad people are taking=
interest in this, and as Jonte said, this issue of transparency vs. effect=
iveness is extremely important.
Geoffrey you are right to question this, and to point out how it's caused t=
rouble in the past. And I know that being personally involved inhibits my =
ability to objectively evaluate the committee's intentions (I think Mike an=
d Noah experienced this on BRDC). But if you look at who is chairing this =
committee (Dick Yue, who also chaired the committee that created OCW about =
a decade ago, and in general is a great guy who believes MIT is becoming to=
o corporate these days), and the process so far (they created a separate, p=
arallel student study group so it wouldn't be influenced by the faculty gro=
up's discussions, and made me the interface between the groups), and the fa=
ct that we didn't invite them to Senate, they asked if they could come talk=
to us, I don't think you'll conclude that this is the next BRDC.
Michael hit the nail on the head, as far as the committee's motivations for=
wanting this meeting to be off the record. I'm certain they won't mind if=
people take notes or talk to their constituents. In fact, they probably h=
ope that you will do that much. Their goal is to get as much feedback as t=
hey can. But these are sensitive topics. And there's nothing to stop The =
Tech from reporting, "MIT is planning to do X, which will revolutionize edu=
cation in the US and the world!" (when, in reality, no recommendations have=
been made to the Provost yet, and publicizing our best ideas at this stage=
might allow other schools to implement them before we do). To be clear, I=
'm not saying that I expect The Tech would do this, I'm saying there is not=
hing stopping them from doing it, and that is mostly what the committee is =
afraid of.
Karan, you are correct; if the discussion is on the record and The Tech has=
a reporter in the room, the members of the committee will be much more pol=
itical (as they are speaking not just to students but to any newspaper in t=
he world that wishes to quote them), and our discussion will not be as prod=
uctive. But I'm sure we'll still be able to voice our opinions, and if thi=
s is what you guys want, I'm willing to prepare some background info for yo=
u so we can discuss things without putting the committee in an awkward posi=
tion.
-hwkns
2011/4/24 Jont=E9 Craighead <jontec@mit.edu<mailto:jontec@mit.edu>>
Hi, everyone:
I am glad to see that we are finally utilizing the mailing list for the pur=
pose it was intended.
Where is the balance between knowledge and accountability? How does informa=
tion or input gained off-the-record compare to that which is on-the-record?=
These are questions that strike at heart of our role as a representative b=
ody, and they deserve debate.
I hope to work with our guests to determine a format that works best for us=
in our role as elected representatives as well as for the Study Group. Ple=
ase keep the input coming because I cannot have this discussion without kno=
wing where Senate stands on this issue.
My office hours are from 8:00pm-10:00pm tonight in the UA Office, and I wou=
ld be happy to discuss this topic with anyone interested.
Thanks,
Jont=E9 Craighead
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Jessica Chen <jessicachen.dbhs@gmail.com<m=
ailto:jessicachen.dbhs@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi hi
With the Online Group, I agree with what was said above, that they need to =
explain to our constituents why we can't disclose any information to them. =
Also Jonte, I understand that some people using laptops is as a distraction=
and they completely sign out of Senate but it's a pain to take hand-writte=
n notes especially since it means we have to retype them up later. It's eas=
ier and prettier to just have it typed and indented and such already. (at l=
east my perspective :) please and thank you!)
Sincerely,
~Jessica Chen
MIT 2014
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@mit.edu<mailto:geo=
fft@mit.edu>> wrote:
It's not. That way you can say "We asked them to come to Senate and present=
and they didn't / lied to us / concealed information", instead of "We aske=
d them to come to Senate and present and they did, and we didn't do anythin=
g with the information because we thought we weren't supposed to". The latt=
er puts the responsibility of failure of communication with students on Sen=
ate instead of the body presenting to Senate.
While BRDC still failed in many miserable ways, things started changing for=
the better after 40 UAS 6.4, which said that student reps to BRDC must be =
able to report back to the government they represent. It's not so much abou=
t the immediate effect of the meeting as the environment and attitude aroun=
d it.
Again, I'm not saying MIT-Online will do this, it's just a thing that I've =
run into in the past that has caused problems, and it's worth Senate not bl=
indly accepting this.
--
Geoffrey Thomas
geofft@mit.edu<mailto:geofft@mit.edu>
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Karan Takhar wrote:
There is also the possibility that we keep this on the record and
subsequently get none or very little relevant information pertaining to the
activities of the study group. I am not advocating for off the record by an=
y
means, just pointing out that on the record with no information shared is a
similar outcome to off the record without being able to act on any
information.
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@mit.edu<mailto:geo=
fft@mit.edu>> wrote:
Sure, quite possible. But you should ask this explicitly. If
they mean that the information is public to the MIT community, I
would like senators to be taking notes.
--
Geoffrey Thomas
geofft@mit.edu<mailto:geofft@mit.edu>
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Michael E Plasmeier wrote:
It seems to me that "off the record" means that they do
not want this to
appear in the Boston Globe, NYT, etc before they are ready
to announce
something. Going before a body as large as Senate means
that this is not
highly classified. It seems that they are trying to get
MIT community
feedback without having this leak to the outside world.
I could be incorrect, so I agree with Tim's suggestion to
ask the study
group to explain what they are trying to protect.
-Michael
From: timorob@gmail.com<mailto:timorob@gmail.com> [mailto:timorob@gmai=
l.com<mailto:timorob@gmail.com>] On
Behalf Of Timothy
Robertson
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 1:13 PM
To: Geoffrey G Thomas
Cc: Jonte Craighead; ua-senate@mit.edu<mailto:ua-senate@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Laptops
I do not believe it is reasonable for us to remain off the
record. I am not
opposed to closed discussions, but I believe the Study
Group should be
accountable to what they bring to the UA body.
Additionally, if we stay off
the record, I would like the Study Group to provide, at
the minimum, a
public explanation of this request.
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Geoffrey Thomas
<geofft@mit.edu<mailto:geofft@mit.edu>> wrote:
What does "off the record" mean? As a constituennt, can I
ask my senator
what happened and expect them to be able to reply in good
conscience?
I have bad memories of Blue Ribbon insisting its meetings
were off the
record, and preventng me as a Dormcon member from having
any idea of what
was going on (until the leaks and 40 UAS 6.4 and all that
fun stuff).
MIT-Online is certainly more preliminary than BRDC was at
that stage, but
also way more important. Is there some summary of the
discussion they're
willing to approve? Can senators take persnal notes not on
laptops?
This is what affects a body's ability to be
representative. Whether you punt
on your computers past the Speaker's bedtime is just a
question of time
management competence and respect, not representation.
--
Geoffrey Thomas
geofft@mit.edu<mailto:geofft@mit.edu>
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, William Steadman wrote:
If every representative were to make motions to: close
discussion,
postpone, etc whenever they felt it was appropriate then
you don't have
a meeting, you have 30 arguing about procedure.
I don't walk into Senate trying to gauge the progress of a
discussion
because that is not my job. My job as Chairman of Space
Planning is to
provide appropriate info in that area. Gauging the
progress of a
discussion is in fact the Speaker's job.
I recommend the Speaker move to end discussion or even
better call for a
motion from the assembly whenever he thinks discussion is
not useful.
There is a reason he controls the length of debate time.
Yet despite the
length of all of our meetings it has only been invoked
once this year.
On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 04:16 -0400, Jont=E9 Craighead (UA
Speaker) wrote:
Hi, guys:
This is meant to be a notice for Monday's meeting.
tl;dr: No laptops during the guest speaker and no laptops
after
11:00pm.
The MIT-Online Faculty Study Group has asked that the
entire session
at Monday's meeting take place off the record. Because of
this, and
the fact that this group will be our guest, laptops must
not be open.
Furthermore, I am going to request that laptops also be
closed during
any business that takes place after 11:00pm. If you have
noticed
anything this year, it's that, usually, fewer than half of
you are
paying attention to the discussion at once past about this
time. If
the discussion on the floor is not interesting or useful,
you should
do something about it (i.e. move to close discussion,
postpone, etc.).
This is your Senate, you should own it. Otherwise, we run
into
situations where a small number of participants are the
only ones
driving the discussions (and effectively acting as the
only student
representatives).
Instituting this rule is not fun, but I feel it's
necessary to keep
people engaged, or at the very least, ensure that our last
three
meetings aren't also our longest.
I would be happy to answer any questions here, but if you
have
comments or want to start a discussion, please move this
e-mail to
ua-senate@.
Thanks,
Jont=E9 Craighead
Speaker of the Senate
MIT Undergraduate Association
Course 1C: Class of 2013
--
Tim Robertson II
MIT 2011
Mechanical Engineering
UA Senate Office Hours:
EC-B515 Sunday 5-8pm
--_000_60826A506BCDE447B39C85C1496EAB7403E2ADFB1CEXPO7exchange_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:dt=3D"uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:m=3D"http://sc=
hemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-=
html40"><head><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 (filtered=
medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vli=
nk=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'f=
ont-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I disagre=
e.=A0 I am glad that the Online Study Group has decided to give us an updat=
e of what they are working on.=A0 I realized that they don’t want the=
ir ideas stolen and publicized nationally before MIT has made a decision.=
=A0 I feel that responsible members of Senate should have the confidence to=
work with confidential information.=A0 <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMs=
oNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";=
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=
=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This=
is the only way we get input into these things.=A0 Requiring everything to=
be open will get the UA nowhere.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal=
><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#=
1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'fon=
t-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>-Plaz <o:p>=
</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-=
family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p=
class=3DMsoNormal><b><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",=
"sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"=
Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Betsy Riley [mailto:rileyb@MIT.EDU] <br><b>Sent:</b>=
Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:21 PM<br><b>To:</b> Daniel D Hawkins<br><b>Cc:</=
b> Jonte Craighead; Jessica Chen; Geoffrey G Thomas; Karan Takhar; Michael =
E Plasmeier; Timothy E Robertson; ua-senate@mit.edu<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: =
Laptops<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p c=
lass=3DMsoNormal>It has been really helpful in the past to have records of =
what our guest speakers say. Although I think that Hawkins's idea of starti=
ng on-the-record is better than having the entire discussion be off-the-rec=
ord, it makes us look uncoordinated and inconsistent if Jont=E9 has already=
agreed to allowing the Online Study Group guests to have the discussion of=
f-the-record (if this isn't the case, Jont=E9, please correct me). I think =
that it would be ideal if Jont=E9 contacted the Online Study Group guests a=
sap and informed them that Senate does not actually want the discussion to =
be off-the-record, as this is not in line with current precedent, we have f=
ound it very beneficial to have on-the-record comments in the past, etc.<o:=
p></o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p cl=
ass=3DMsoNormal>I'm curious what anyone thinks Senate will gain from knowin=
g off-the-record information if we can't quote it later. I don't think that=
Senate has done much, if any, strategy this year or passed many, if any, b=
ills of the sort that would benefit from knowing confidential information. =
On the other hand, Senate, exec, and in fact any undergrad would benefit fr=
om having documented statements from the administration. Therefore I think =
that having any on-the-record information from the Online Study Group is mo=
re useful than hearing unquotable, off-the-record information, even if it t=
here is more of it.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbs=
p;</o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>=
Betsy =
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
 =
; &nb=
sp; &=
nbsp; =
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
 =
; &nb=
sp; &=
nbsp; =
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; <o:p></o:p></p><=
div><p class=3DMsoNormal>2011/4/24 Daniel Hawkins <<a href=3D"mailto:hwk=
ns@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">hwkns@mit.edu</a>><o:p></o:p></p><p class=
=3DMsoNormal>Also, importantly, on-the-record or off-the-record doesn't hav=
e to apply to the entire meeting. Perhaps it would be best to start e=
verything on the record and remind our guests that they are free to request=
off-the-record discussion at any point, and that we will decide whether it=
is appropriate. Thoughts on that?<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoN=
ormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>-hwkns<o:p></o:p=
></p><div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=3DMs=
oNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>2011/4/24 Daniel Haw=
kins <<a href=3D"mailto:hwkns@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">hwkns@mit.edu</=
a>><o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Hi all,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p cla=
ss=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>Sorry I=
just saw this thread. I wanted to clear some things up, as the stude=
nt rep to the MIT-Online Faculty Study Group. I'm glad people are tak=
ing interest in this, and as Jonte said, this issue of transparency vs. eff=
ectiveness is extremely important.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoN=
ormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>Geoffrey you are=
right to question this, and to point out how it's caused trouble in the pa=
st. And I know that being personally involved inhibits my ability to =
objectively evaluate the committee's intentions (I think Mike and Noah expe=
rienced this on BRDC). But if you look at who is chairing this commit=
tee (Dick Yue, who also chaired the committee that created OCW about a deca=
de ago, and in general is a great guy who believes MIT is becoming too corp=
orate these days), and the process so far (they created a separate, paralle=
l student study group so it wouldn't be influenced by the faculty group's d=
iscussions, and made me the interface between the groups), and the fact tha=
t we didn't invite them to Senate, they asked if they could come talk to us=
, I don't think you'll conclude that this is the next BRDC.<o:p></o:p></p><=
/div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DM=
soNormal>Michael hit the nail on the head, as far as the committee's motiva=
tions for wanting this meeting to be off the record. I'm certain they=
won't mind if people take notes or talk to their constituents. In fa=
ct, they probably hope that you will do that much. Their goal is to g=
et as much feedback as they can. But these are sensitive topics. &nbs=
p;And there's nothing to stop The Tech from reporting, "MIT is plannin=
g to do X, which will revolutionize education in the US and the world!"=
; (when, in reality, no recommendations have been made to the Provost yet, =
and publicizing our best ideas at this stage might allow other schools to i=
mplement them before we do). To be clear, I'm not saying that I expec=
t The Tech would do this, I'm saying there is nothing stopping them from do=
ing it, and that is mostly what the committee is afraid of.<o:p></o:p></p><=
/div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DM=
soNormal>Karan, you are correct; if the discussion is on the record and The=
Tech has a reporter in the room, the members of the committee will be much=
more political (as they are speaking not just to students but to any newsp=
aper in the world that wishes to quote them), and our discussion will not b=
e as productive. But I'm sure we'll still be able to voice our opinio=
ns, and if this is what you guys want, I'm willing to prepare some backgrou=
nd info for you so we can discuss things without putting the committee in a=
n awkward position.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbs=
p;</o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>-hwkns<o:p></o:p></p></div><div=
><div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p cla=
ss=3DMsoNormal>2011/4/24 Jont=E9 Craighead <<a href=3D"mailto:jontec@mit=
.edu" target=3D"_blank">jontec@mit.edu</a>><o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMso=
Normal>Hi, everyone:<br><br>I am glad to see that we are finally utilizing =
the mailing list for the purpose it was intended.<br><br>Where is the balan=
ce between knowledge and accountability? How does information or input gain=
ed off-the-record compare to that which is on-the-record? These are questio=
ns that strike at heart of our role as a representative body, and they dese=
rve debate.<br><br>I hope to work with our guests to determine a format tha=
t works best for us in our role as elected representatives as well as for t=
he Study Group. Please keep the input coming because I cannot have this dis=
cussion without knowing where Senate stands on this issue.<br><br>My office=
hours are from 8:00pm-10:00pm tonight in the UA Office, and I would be hap=
py to discuss this topic with anyone interested.<br><br clear=3Dall>Thanks,=
<br><span style=3D'color:#888888'>Jont=E9 Craighead</span><o:p></o:p></p><d=
iv><div><p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:=
p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Jessica Ch=
en <<a href=3D"mailto:jessicachen.dbhs@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jess=
icachen.dbhs@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Hi=
hi<br><br>With the Online Group, I agree with what was said above, that th=
ey need to explain to our constituents why we can't disclose any informatio=
n to them. Also Jonte, I understand that some people using laptops is as a =
distraction and they completely sign out of Senate but it's a pain to take =
hand-written notes especially since it means we have to retype them up late=
r. It's easier and prettier to just have it typed and indented and such alr=
eady. (at least my perspective :) please and thank you!)<br><br><br><br cle=
ar=3Dall>Sincerely,<br><span style=3D'color:#888888'>~Jessica Chen<br>MIT 2=
014</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bot=
tom:12.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>On Sun, Apr 24=
, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Geoffrey Thomas <<a href=3D"mailto:geofft@mit.edu" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">geofft@mit.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoN=
ormal>It's not. That way you can say "We asked them to come to Senate =
and present and they didn't / lied to us / concealed information", ins=
tead of "We asked them to come to Senate and present and they did, and=
we didn't do anything with the information because we thought we weren't s=
upposed to". The latter puts the responsibility of failure of communic=
ation with students on Senate instead of the body presenting to Senate.<br>=
<br>While BRDC still failed in many miserable ways, things started changing=
for the better after 40 UAS 6.4, which said that student reps to BRDC must=
be able to report back to the government they represent. It's not so much =
about the immediate effect of the meeting as the environment and attitude a=
round it.<br><br>Again, I'm not saying MIT-Online will do this, it's just a=
thing that I've run into in the past that has caused problems, and it's wo=
rth Senate not blindly accepting this.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNor=
mal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><br>-- <br>Geoffrey Thomas<br><a hre=
f=3D"mailto:geofft@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">geofft@mit.edu</a><o:p></o:p>=
</p></div><div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On =
Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Karan Takhar wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal st=
yle=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'> There is also the possibility tha=
t we keep this on the record and<br>subsequently get none or very little re=
levant information pertaining to the<br>activities of the study group. I am=
not advocating for off the record by any<br>means, just pointing out that =
on the record with no information shared is a<br>similar outcome to off the=
record without being able to act on any<br>information.<br><br>On Sun, Apr=
24, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Geoffrey Thomas <<a href=3D"mailto:geofft@mit.edu"=
target=3D"_blank">geofft@mit.edu</a>> wrote:<br> Sur=
e, quite possible. But you should ask this explicitly. If<br> =
they mean that the information is public to the MIT community, I<br>&=
nbsp; would like senators to be taking notes.<br><br> &n=
bsp; --<br> Geoffrey Thomas<br>  =
;<a href=3D"mailto:geofft@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">geofft@mit.edu</a><br>=
<br>On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Michael E Plasmeier wrote:<br><br><br>  =
; It seems to me that “off the record” means that they do=
<br> not want this to<br> appear in t=
he Boston Globe, NYT, etc before they are ready<br> to a=
nnounce<br> something. Going before a body as larg=
e as Senate means<br> that this is not<br> =
highly classified. It seems that they are trying to get<br> &nb=
sp; MIT community<br> feedback without having this=
leak to the outside world.<br><br> <br><br> =
I could be incorrect, so I agree with Tim’s suggestion =
to<br> ask the study<br> group to exp=
lain what they are trying to protect.<br><br> <br>=
<br> -Michael<br><br> <br><br>&=
nbsp; From: <a href=3D"mailto:timorob@gmail.com" target=3D"_bl=
ank">timorob@gmail.com</a> [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:timorob@gmail.com" tar=
get=3D"_blank">timorob@gmail.com</a>] On<br> Behalf Of T=
imothy<br> Robertson<br> Sent: Sunday=
, April 24, 2011 1:13 PM<br> To: Geoffrey G Thomas<br>&n=
bsp; Cc: Jonte Craighead; <a href=3D"mailto:ua-senate@mit.edu"=
target=3D"_blank">ua-senate@mit.edu</a><br> Subject: Re=
: Laptops<br><br> <br><br> I do=
not believe it is reasonable for us to remain off the<br> &nb=
sp;record. I am not<br> opposed to closed discussions, b=
ut I believe the Study<br> Group should be<br> &nb=
sp; accountable to what they bring to the UA body.<br> &=
nbsp;Additionally, if we stay off<br> the record, I woul=
d like the Study Group to provide, at<br> the minimum, a=
<br> public explanation of this request.<br><br> &=
nbsp; On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Geoffrey Thomas<br> &nb=
sp; <<a href=3D"mailto:geofft@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">geofft@mi=
t.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br> What does "off the rec=
ord" mean? As a constituennt, can I<br> ask my sena=
tor<br> what happened and expect them to be able to repl=
y in good<br> conscience?<br><br> I h=
ave bad memories of Blue Ribbon insisting its meetings<br> &nb=
sp;were off the<br> record, and preventng me as a Dormco=
n member from having<br> any idea of what<br> &nbs=
p; was going on (until the leaks and 40 UAS 6.4 and all that<br> =
; fun stuff).<br> MIT-Online is certainly m=
ore preliminary than BRDC was at<br> that stage, but<br>=
also way more important. Is there some summary of the<b=
r> discussion they're<br> willing to =
approve? Can senators take persnal notes not on<br> lapt=
ops?<br><br> This is what affects a body's ability to be=
<br> representative. Whether you punt<br> &=
nbsp;on your computers past the Speaker's bedtime is just a<br>  =
; question of time<br> management competence and r=
espect, not representation.<br><br> --<br> =
Geoffrey Thomas<br> <a href=3D"mailto:geofft@mit.e=
du" target=3D"_blank">geofft@mit.edu</a><br><br><br><br>  =
;On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, William Steadman wrote:<br><br> If=
every representative were to make motions to: close<br>  =
;discussion,<br> postpone, etc whenever they felt it was=
appropriate then<br> you don't have<br> &n=
bsp;a meeting, you have 30 arguing about procedure.<br><br> &n=
bsp;I don't walk into Senate trying to gauge the progress of a<br> &n=
bsp; discussion<br> because that is not my job. My=
job as Chairman of Space<br> Planning is to<br> &=
nbsp; provide appropriate info in that area. Gauging the<br> &n=
bsp; progress of a<br> discussion is in fact the S=
peaker's job.<br><br> I recommend the Speaker move to en=
d discussion or even<br> better call for a<br> &nb=
sp; motion from the assembly whenever he thinks discussion is<br>&nbs=
p; not useful.<br> There is a reason he con=
trols the length of debate time.<br> Yet despite the<br>=
length of all of our meetings it has only been invoked<=
br> once this year.<br><br> On Sun, 2=
011-04-24 at 04:16 -0400, Jont=E9 Craighead (UA<br> Spea=
ker) wrote:<br><br> Hi, guys:<br><br>  =
;This is meant to be a notice for Monday's meeting.<br><br> &n=
bsp;tl;dr: No laptops during the guest speaker and no laptops<br> &nb=
sp; after<br> 11:00pm.<br><br> =
The MIT-Online Faculty Study Group has asked that the<br> &nbs=
p;entire session<br> at Monday's meeting take place off =
the record. Because of<br> this, and<br> &n=
bsp;the fact that this group will be our guest, laptops must<br> &nbs=
p; not be open.<br><br> Furthermore, I am going to=
request that laptops also be<br> closed during<br> =
; any business that takes place after 11:00pm. If you have<br>=
noticed<br> anything this year, it's=
that, usually, fewer than half of<br> you are<br> =
paying attention to the discussion at once past about this<br=
> time. If<br> the discussion on the =
floor is not interesting or useful,<br> you should<br>&n=
bsp; do something about it (i.e. move to close discussion,<br>=
postpone, etc.).<br> This is your Se=
nate, you should own it. Otherwise, we run<br> into<br>&=
nbsp; situations where a small number of participants are the<=
br> only ones<br> driving the discuss=
ions (and effectively acting as the<br> only student<br>=
representatives).<br><br> Institutin=
g this rule is not fun, but I feel it's<br> necessary to=
keep<br> people engaged, or at the very least, ensure t=
hat our last<br> three<br> meetings a=
ren't also our longest.<br><br> I would be happy to answ=
er any questions here, but if you<br> have<br> &nb=
sp; comments or want to start a discussion, please move this<br> =
; e-mail to<br> ua-senate@.<br><br> &=
nbsp; Thanks,<br> Jont=E9 Craighead<br><br> =
Speaker of the Senate<br> MIT Undergraduate=
Association<br> Course 1C: Class of 2013<br><br> =
<br><br><br><br><br> --<br> &nb=
sp; Tim Robertson II<br> MIT 2011<br> =
Mechanical Engineering<br> UA Senate Office Hours=
:<br> EC-B515 Sunday 5-8pm<br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p=
></div></div></div><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></=
div><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=3D=
MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=3DMsoNormal=
><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><p class=3DMsoNormal><o=
:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>=
--_000_60826A506BCDE447B39C85C1496EAB7403E2ADFB1CEXPO7exchange_--
