[2639] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Seering)
Tue Oct 17 12:02:57 2006
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171115420.23408@dodecahedron.mit.edu>
From: Adam Seering <aseering@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:02:08 -0400
To: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
On Oct 17, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Alexander J Werbos wrote:
> I see the creation of a process whereby one or several student
> groups can
> petition the UA for the reallocation of materiel being used by another
> student group.
...
>
> This ensures:
...
> 2) That the UA doesn't go nosing where it doesn't belong.
Why do you think the UA belongs here? It's not actively involved
already; any equipment sharing could be handled exclusively between
student groups without any UA involvement, at least in theory.
Why doesn't the group in question just go to the group with the
resource and try to work out an arrangement to share the unit
equipment in question? Reasonable people should be able to work out
an agreement that's fair for both sides, without the rather-large
overhead of the UA.
If people are being unreasonable, a group (possibly the UA) could act
as an arbiter to smooth things out. You're not suggesting
arbitration, though; you're proposing that the UA act as a power
amplifier to let groups take stuff from other groups (and that the UA
gain the power to act as a power-amplifier in this way). This
strikes me as a recipe for abuse and bad feelings.
> 1) The resource being discussed is not being used to its fullest
> efficiency by the group currently controlling it
This seems like a reasonable criteria. How would you propose judging
it, though?; I don't see a clear way where you could show, to
everyone's agreement, that it has been met. Could this be more
specific?
> 2) Another group can demonstrate a compelling use for this resource
I'd agree with that. "compelling" is open to a little more
interpretation than I'd like, but, not too bad overall.
> 3) The reallocation of the resource will not seriously impact the
> group
> currently controlling it
"I don't like The Tech; I don't think it's using its office computers
efficiently. They can clearly make do with Athena-cluster computers;
there's lots of software on Athena."
I don't know if The Tech's actually a valid example, but hopefully
you get the idea.
Adam
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
